Can You Trust Big Pharma’s Gene Therapy Vaccine?

As famous by Russel Brand in a current video commentary (above), a few of the similar drug firms now answerable for creating and manufacturing fast-tracked COVID-19 vaccines have been additionally answerable for creating the opioid disaster within the U.S., which has killed as many Americans as have died from COVID-19.

Most have additionally been convicted of different unethical and legal actions through the years, any of which places their moral health into query. Not surprisingly, opioid addiction and overdose deaths skyrocketed throughout 2020 lockdowns and, now, COVID-19 vaccines are taking their toll as effectively.

Johnson & Johnson Found Partly Liable for Opioid Crisis

In 2019, Johnson & Johnson was discovered partially liable for the “human and financial costs” of the opioid epidemic in the U.S. and was ordered to pay $572 million to the state of Oklahoma. While the corporate denied any wrongdoing, “data revealed during the trial proved a culture of downplaying the risks of opioids to customers and physicians,” Cassiobury Court reported, including:1

Sales representatives were trained to tell doctors that the risk of addiction was 2.6% or less if the drugs were prescribed by a doctor and, most shockingly, doctors 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,” revealed in The Guardian July 24, 2019, Chris McGreal, creator of “American Overdose, the Opioid Tragedy in Three Acts,” wrote:2

“Oklahoma’s attorney general accused the company of a ‘cunning, cynical and deceitful scheme’ to ramp up narcotic painkiller sales as one of a web of firms that created the biggest drug epidemic in American history as profits surged. The companies worked in step to change medical culture and practice by influencing doctors, researchers, federal regulators and politicians.”

Curiously, as famous by Brand, Johnson & Johnson’s inventory value rose by 5% instantly following that verdict. What this implies, he suggests, is that we’ve created methods that encourage malpractice. Profit motives override all different considerations, together with deadly results.

Importantly, Johnson & Johnson made false claims in regards to the security of its opioid, going as far as to govern scientific papers to help its assertion that the chance of habit was lower than 2.6%.3 As Brand factors out, when firms interact in unethical conduct, particularly the falsification and manipulation of science, they create mistrust and cynicism.

This must be apparent, and it’s no person’s fault however their personal. We can level to those very particular examples and say, “Look here. They manipulated and falsified science to make money. When they were caught, all they had to do was pay a manageable fine, which they recouped through a rise in stock price.”

If it occurred as soon as (and imagine me, it’s occurred extra than as soon as), it will probably occur once more. And if it will probably occur in any respect, why couldn’t this unethical conduct happen when creating what is anticipated to be a phenomenally worthwhile pandemic vaccine? We’re informed we should not query the security or effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines, but the histories of the makers are such that not questioning all the things they do can be naïve within the excessive.

Johnson & Johnson has additionally been concerned in an extended record of product security and contamination points, advertising and security violations, authorities contract violations and overseas corrupt practices leading to a whole lot of hundreds of thousands of {dollars} in fines. You can discover their rap sheet on the Corporate Research Project’s web site.4

Pfizer’s Long History of Unethical Behavior

Another COVID-19 vaccine maker, Pfizer, has been sued in a number of venues over unethical conduct,5 together with unethical drug testing and unlawful advertising practices.

In 2014, it was ordered to pay $75 million to settle expenses regarding its testing of a brand new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ailing Nigerian kids. As reported by the Independent6 on the time, Pfizer despatched a group of docs into Nigeria within the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the group arrange “within meters” of a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and commenced shelling out the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 kids picked, half received the experimental drug and the opposite half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin. Eleven of the youngsters handled by the Pfizer group died, and lots of others suffered unwanted side effects similar to mind injury and organ failure.

Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the corporate, solely 5 of the youngsters given Trovan died, in comparison with six who obtained Rocephin, so their drug was to not blame. The downside was they apparently by no means informed the dad and mom that their kids have been being given an experimental drug.

What’s extra, whereas Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t arrange till a 12 months after the trial had already taken place.

In his 2010 paper,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 offender,’ persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.” Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries have been fined $3 billion in legal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.

Such sums did nothing to deter dangerous conduct. In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay $14.5 million to settle federal expenses of unlawful advertising,8 and in 2014 they settled federal expenses regarding improper advertising of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.9

The Corporate Research Project additionally particulars Pfizer’s historical past of bribery, environmental violations, labor and employee security violations and extra.10 Pfizer has additionally been bullying countries to put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits ensuing from its vaccine.

Pfizer’s Vaccine Plant Has History of Recalls

A March 10, 2021, article11 by KHN additionally highlights persistent, long-standing issues at Pfizer’s vaccine plant in Kansas, which is slated to begin producing COVID-19 vaccines:

“The McPherson, Kansas, facility, which FDA inspectors wrote is the nation’s largest producer of sterile injectable managed substances, has an extended, troubled historical past. Nearly a decade’s value of FDA inspection studies, recollects and reprimands reviewed by KHN present the power as a repeat offender.

FDA investigators have repeatedly famous in studies that the plant has failed to regulate high quality and contamination or totally examine after manufacturing failures.

The Seventies-era manufacturing web site has had persistent mildew considerations through the years and been the main focus of at least 4 intense FDA inspections since Pfizer took over its operations in late 2015, when it acquired Hospira.”

The plant is going to be a fill-and-finish web site for the Pfizer vaccine. The query is whether or not the positioning has actually cleaned up its act, or whether or not contamination would possibly develop into a difficulty.

“The facility’s record of recalls and field alerts include vials of medication that contained glass and cardboard particles and, as one customer complained, a ‘small insect or speck of dust,'” KHN studies.

“A 2017 FDA warning letter … said the contaminants such as cardboard and glass found in vials posed a ‘severe risk of harm to patients’ and indicated that the facility’s process for manufacturing sterile injectable products was ‘out of control.’”

AstraZeneca’s Extensive Rap Sheet

Then there’s AstraZeneca, whose director of analysis for the drug Seroquel, Wayne MacFadden, confessed to getting into into a number of sexual affairs for the only real goal of acquiring information and favors which may profit the corporate.12

Aside from that eyebrow-raising scandal, AstraZeneca has been introduced into the halls of justice greater than as soon as. Below is however a sampling of its legal historical past. Even extra may be discovered on the Corporate Research Project’s “AstraZeneca: Corporate Rap Sheet” web page:13

  • In 2003, AstraZeneca was fined $355 million to settle Medicare fraud expenses regarding its advertising of the most cancers drug Zoladex.14,15 Among the numerous expenses they pleaded responsible to was that they’d inspired docs to illegally request Medicare reimbursements. Four years later, in 2007, the corporate was ordered to pay one other $12.9 million in damages for its overcharging Medicare and personal insurance coverage for Zoladex16
  • In 2005, the European Commission fined AstraZeneca 60 million euros for misusing the patent system to delay market entry of competing generics17,18
  • In 2010, AstraZeneca was fined $520 million for off-label drug advertising19
  • Also in 2010, the corporate agreed to pay $198 million to settle greater than 25,000 lawsuits filed by sufferers harmed by three of its psychiatric medicine20
  • In 2016, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission fined the corporate $4.3 million for improperly influencing and rewarding prescribers to make use of their merchandise, in different phrases, bribery21

AstraZeneca’s Vaccine Is For-Profit After All

Now, AstraZeneca has made a giant deal about its vow to not revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine. Adrian Hill, director of Oxford’s Jenner Institute and the co-developer of the AstraZeneca vaccine, has gone on report saying “I personally don’t believe that in a time of pandemic there should be exclusive licenses.”22 As reported by KHN:23

“Oxford University stunned and happy advocates of overhauling the vaccine enterprise in April by promising to donate the rights to its promising coronavirus vaccine to any drugmaker. The thought was to supply medicines stopping or treating COVID-19 at a low value or freed from cost, the British college stated …

‘We actually thought they were going to do that,’ James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a nonprofit that works to increase entry to medical know-how, stated of Oxford’s pledge. ‘Why wouldn’t folks conform to let everybody have entry to the most effective vaccines potential?’”

The fantasy didn’t final lengthy. A number of weeks later, Oxford University caved to the urgings of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and signed an unique contract with AstraZeneca. According to an article in The Nation,24 “Gates himself describes his foundation as intimately involved in the partnership between AstraZeneca and the University of Oxford.”

This vaccine deal offers AstraZeneca “sole rights and no guarantee of low prices,” KHN writes.25 Indeed, the not-for-profit vow expires as soon as the pandemic is over, and AstraZeneca itself seems to have a say with regards to declaring the top date. It may very well be as early as July 1, 2021, based on an organization memo obtained by the Financial Times.26

As defined by investigative journalist Whitney Webb in a recent Corbett Report interview,27 the precise patents and royalties for the AstraZeneca vaccine are held by a non-public firm known as Vaccitech, which has been fairly open in regards to the future revenue potential with its shareholders, noting that the COVID-19 vaccine will most probably develop into an annual vaccine that’s up to date every season. Oxford University itself additionally stands to make hundreds of thousands from the deal. According to KHN:28

“Other companies working on coronavirus vaccines have followed the same line, collecting billions in government grants, hoarding patents, revealing as little as possible about their deals — and planning to charge up to $37 a dose for potentially hundreds of millions of shots.”

All of this tells you that the identical greed that drove these drug firms into legal acts earlier than is nonetheless at play as we speak, and so they have repeatedly confirmed that revenue potential wins over hurt potential each time.

Leaked Data Warns of mRNA Instability

A current function investigation29 by journalist Serena Tinari revealed in The BMJ evaluations the content material of leaked — presumably hacked — paperwork exhibiting the European Medicines Agency (EMA) had considerations about early batches of the Pfizer vaccine having decrease than anticipated ranges of intact mRNA:

“EMA scientists tasked with making certain manufacturing high quality — the chemistry, manufacturing, and management elements of Pfizer’s submission to the EMA — nervous about ‘truncated and modified mRNA species present in the finished product.’

Among the many information leaked to The BMJ, an e-mail dated 23 November [2020] by a excessive rating EMA official outlined a raft of points. In brief, industrial manufacturing was not producing vaccines to the specs anticipated, and regulators have been uncertain of the implications. EMA responded by submitting two ‘major objections’ with Pfizer, together with a number of different questions it needed addressed.

The e-mail recognized ‘a significant difference in % RNA integrity/truncated species’ between the medical batches and proposed industrial batches — from round 78% to 55%. The root trigger was unknown and the affect of this lack of RNA integrity on security and efficacy of the vaccine was ‘yet to be defined,’ the e-mail stated.”

Considering the supply of intact mRNA is of essential significance for the efficacy of this vaccine, the suspicion is that the decrease ranges would possibly render the vaccine ineffective.

One downside is that whereas the EMA has licensed Pfizer’s vaccine and issued a public evaluation stating the standard is “considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable,” it’s not clear if and the way the company’s considerations about insufficient mRNA ranges have been really corrected.

The EMA has defined away the difficulty by stating that a few of the leaked information was “partially doctored” by primarily reducing and pasting knowledge from totally different customers into legitimate emails.

“But the documents offer the broader medical community a chance to reflect on the complexities of quality assurance for novel mRNA vaccines,” Tinari writes, “which include everything from the quantification and integrity of mRNA and carrier lipids to measuring the distribution of particle sizes and encapsulation efficiency.”

It’s well-recognized that RNA instability is of the utmost significance when it comes to this sort of know-how, as even minor degradation anyplace alongside the RNA strand can gradual the interpretation efficiency and outcome within the incomplete expression of the goal antigen (on this case the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein).

One downside is there’s no regulatory steerage for mRNA primarily based “vaccines.” Yet one other downside is that the info presently accessible is so scant that regulators in all probability wouldn’t be capable to make an applicable evaluation in regards to the share of intact mRNA required for efficacy.

Lipid Nanoparticles Are Highly Inflammatory

mRNA fragility and instability is the explanation why Pfizer and Moderna use a lipid nanoparticle supply system, which brings an entire separate set of issues. Scientist and researcher Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., believes the nanoparticle permits the mRNA to flee the conventional degradation by enzymes that usually take away mRNA, thereby permitting it to persist in your tissues for a very long time, persevering with to provide spike proteins all of the whereas.

As beforehand suspected, analysis30 posted March 4, 2021, on the preprint server bioRxiv now warns that the lipid nanoparticle element of those mRNA vaccines is in reality “highly inflammatory” and could also be answerable for most of the unwanted side effects being reported. According to the authors:

“Vaccines primarily based on mRNA-containing lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are a promising new platform utilized by two main vaccines … Clinical trials and ongoing vaccinations current with very excessive safety ranges and ranging levels of unwanted side effects. However, the character of the reported unwanted side effects stays poorly outlined.

Here we current proof that LNPs utilized in many preclinical research are extremely inflammatory in mice.

Intradermal injection of these LNPs led to speedy and sturdy inflammatory responses, characterised by huge neutrophil infiltration, activation of various inflammatory pathways, and manufacturing of assorted inflammatory cytokines and chemokines. The similar dose of LNP delivered intranasally led to comparable inflammatory responses within the lung and resulted in a excessive mortality fee …

Their potent adjuvant exercise and reported superiority evaluating to different adjuvants in supporting the induction of adaptive immune responses might stem from their inflammatory nature. Furthermore, the preclinical LNPs are just like those used for human vaccines, which might additionally clarify the noticed unwanted side effects in people utilizing this platform.”

Can You Trust Big Pharma to Safeguard Your Health?

Considering their lengthy histories of unethical, unlawful and legal behaviors, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca are hardly beacons of hope for mankind with regards to COVID-19 — or some other pandemic, for that matter.

Sadly, the quickly escalating studies of significant unwanted side effects and deaths from these injections, and the businesses’ dismissal of those occasions as coincidental or insignificant additional show that revenue remains to be the first driver. If they could make a buck by ignoring an issue, they are going to.


Source Link –

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

1 + sixteen =

Back to top button