Pandemic — The
Next Big Thing
The Sting
Revisited
When Dr. Kory testified
before the U.S. Senate on December 8, 2020, the message was clear:
Ivermectin might well be able to bring the COVID-19
virus to a spectacular halt. Studies were cited that
should have convinced expert and layman alike. Dr.
Kory's testimony appeared on YouTube, but—no surprise—it
was soon removed by the platform for being "dangerous and
misleading". So why did the pharmaceutical industry, the
NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA ignore Dr. Kory?
Everyone knows why,
or at least the obvious reason why: a cheap, safe
and effective treatment would torpedo Big Pharma's
plans to make $$$illions from their rushed-to-market
experimental mRNA treatments. The problem, not
buried in the fine print, but nonetheless not widely
trumpeted at the time: An Emergency
Use Authorization for a medical product,
such as the EUA sought by Big Pharma for mRNA gene
therapy,
cannot be granted if there exists a viable and
safe treatment for the disease that the
experimental product has targeted:
"FDA
may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved
uses of approved medical products...when certain
criteria are met, including there are no adequate,
approved, and available alternatives."
There it is:
Ivermectin accepted as a treatment, no EUA for mRNA,
no Big Bucks for Big Pharma. As a truly humanitarian
gesture, the Senate Committee could have insisted,
or at least recommended that an EUA be immediately
issued for Ivermectin, but nooooo. A
behind-the-scenes eight-hundred-pound gorilla
effect?
If one refers back
to a 2004 article in the New York Review of
Books
by Marcia Angell, formerly editor of the prestigious
New
England Journal of Medicine, (New York Review of
Books
JULY 15, 2004 ISSUE) we clearly see a few key facts
about Big Pharma that provide important background
for understanding the present Big Pharma Phiasco. (Bold type emphasis added in the
following excerpt.)
"Over the past two
decades the pharmaceutical industry has moved very
far from its original high purpose of discovering
and producing useful new drugs. Now primarily a
marketing machine to sell drugs of dubious benefit,
this industry uses its wealth and power to co-opt
every institution that might stand in its way,
including the US Congress, the FDA, academic medical
centers, and the medical profession itself.
"What does the
eight-hundred-pound gorilla do? Anything it wants
to.
"What’s true of the
eight-hundred-pound gorilla is true of the colossus
that is the pharmaceutical industry. It is used to
doing pretty much what it wants to do. The watershed
year was 1980. Before then, it was a good business,
but afterward, it was a stupendous one. From 1960 to
1980, prescription drug sales were fairly static as
a percent of US gross domestic product, but from
1980 to 2000, they tripled. They now stand at more
than $200 billion a year. Of the many
events that contributed to the industry’s great
and good fortune, none had to do with the quality
of the drugs the companies were selling.
"As their profits
skyrocketed during the 1980s and 1990s, so did
the political power of drug companies. By
1990, the industry had assumed its present
contours as a business with unprecedented
control over its own fortunes. For example, if
it didn’t like something about the FDA, the
federal agency that is supposed to regulate
the industry, it could change it through
direct pressure or through its friends in
Congress.
"When I say this is a profitable industry, I
mean really profitable. It is difficult to
conceive of how awash in money big pharma is.
Drug industry expenditures for research and
development, while large, were consistently
far less than profits. For the top ten
companies, they amounted to only 11 percent of
sales in 1990, rising slightly to 14 percent
in 2000. The biggest single item in the budget
is neither R&D nor even profits but
something usually called “marketing and
administration”—a name that varies slightly
from company to company. In 1990, a staggering
36 percent of sales revenues went into this
category, and that proportion remained about
the same for over a decade. Note that this is
two and a half times the expenditures for
R&D.
"[But] the industry [now] faces ... problems.
It happens that, by chance, some of the top-
selling drugs—with combined sales of around
$35 billion a year—are scheduled to go off
patent within a few years of one another. This
drop over the cliff began in 2001, with the
expiration of Eli Lilly’s patent on its
blockbuster antidepressant Prozac. In the same
year, AstraZeneca lost its patent on Prilosec,
the original “purple pill” for heartburn,
which at its peak brought in a stunning $6
billion a year. Bristol-Myers Squibb lost its
best-selling diabetes drug, Glucophage. The
unusual cluster of expirations will continue
for another couple of years. While it
represents a huge loss to the industry as a
whole, for some companies it’s a disaster.
Schering-Plough’s blockbuster allergy drug,
Claritin, brought in fully a third of that
company’s revenues before its patent expired
in 2002. Claritin is now sold over the counter
for much less than its prescription price. So
far, the company has been unable to make up
for the loss by trying to switch Claritin
users to Clarinex—a drug that is virtually
identical but has the advantage of still being
on patent.
[...]
"The industry is also being hit with a tidal
wave of government investigations and civil
and criminal lawsuits. The litany of charges
includes illegally overcharging Medicaid and
Medicare, paying kickbacks to doctors,
engaging in anticompetitive practices,
colluding with generic companies to keep
generic drugs off the market, illegally
promoting drugs for unapproved uses, engaging
in misleading direct-to-consumer advertising,
and, of course, covering up evidence. Some of
the settlements have been huge. TAP
Pharmaceuticals, for instance, paid $875
million to settle civil and criminal charges
of Medicaid and Medicare fraud in the
marketing of its prostate cancer drug, Lupron.
All of these efforts could be summed up as
increasingly desperate marketing and patent
games, activities that always skirted the edge
of legality but now are sometimes well on the
other side.
"How is the pharmaceutical industry responding
to its difficulties? One could hope drug
companies would decide to make some
changes—trim their prices, or at least make
them more equitable, and put more of their
money into trying to discover genuinely
innovative drugs, instead of just talking
about it. But that is not what is happening.
Instead, drug companies are doing more of what
got them into this situation. They are
marketing their me-too drugs even more
relentlessly. They are pushing even harder to
extend their monopolies on top-selling drugs.
And they are pouring more money into lobbying
and political campaigns. As for innovation,
they are still waiting for Godot.
"This is an industry that in some ways is like
the Wizard of Oz—still full of bluster but now
being exposed as something far different from
its image. Instead of being an engine of
innovation, it is a vast marketing machine.
Instead of being a free market success story,
it lives off government-funded research and
monopoly rights. Yet this industry occupies an
essential role in the American health care
system, and it performs a valuable function,
if not in discovering important new drugs at
least in developing them and bringing them to
market. But big pharma is extravagantly
rewarded for its relatively modest functions.
We get nowhere near our money’s worth.
"Clearly, the pharmaceutical industry is due
for fundamental reform. Reform will have to
extend beyond the industry to the agencies and
institutions it has co-opted, including the
FDA and the medical profession and its
teaching centers." [end of excerpt, posted
without permission under the "Fair Use"
rulings regarding the 1976 Copyright Act for
NON-profit academic, research, and general
information purposes.]
And clearly, the evidence so diligently
exposed by Marcia Angell demonstrates that the
pharmaceutical industry—even by the turn of
the century—had itself become a systemic
chronic disease typical of the capitalist
extreme, needing a cure that the patient
resists at every turn for there is only one
way to cure such a disease. "Reform"? It is a
lesson as old as capitalism itself: when an
industry grows and grows beyond all reasonable
bounds, acquires the means to control its
future through big money, bribes, kickbacks,
dirty tricks, cheating, murder, crimes
against humanity ...and then unforseen
circumstances begin to erode the cash-flow....
I need hardly say what the cure is.
All that exposed in 2004! What, then, is the
situation today?
[...]
Now, it seems settled that the research that
led to COVID-19 was
bioweapon-oriented. But that does not
prove it was released (also a near-certainty)
intentionally
as a bioweapon. That may have
happened a little later, as a side-line of the
big-money project when Big Pharma chatted with
the Pentagon, and it was thought a cool idea
to infect some Iranian leaders. Primarily,
COVID was released so that Fauci, NIAID &
Big Pharma could then demand an EUA and get
eventual patents on all such mRNA treatments.
But for COVID these people had research
indicating they knew the spike protein that
was injected did not remain localized but
spread to many organs in the body. What if
that should cause "spike protein disease"? It
was probably thought that the problem would be
minor, and if enough pressure and propaganda
be applied, success in "vaccinating the world"
could still be achieved, and collateral damage
ignored. Unfortunately the spike protein
complication resulted in a great many deaths
and serious injuries, far, far outnumbering
such negative outcomes which in previous
incidences of introduction of vaccines, were
sufficient to immediately force a withdrawal
of the product from further testing.
But the push for world vaccination continues,
with such force that one begins, or rather
continues to wonder why. Some see a conspiracy
to reduce world population. I'd need at least
some extensive whistleblower hard data before
I'd credit the long list of perpetrators as
being that competent, to have planned this
thing from the get-go. So far I have to see
the whole thing as a Colossal Con Job for Big
Bucks turned into a Colossal SNAFU for which
the perps are trying very hard to cover their
dorsal protuberances. The whole affair is
typical of very clever but very unwise
participants. Indeed, as a sequel to The Sting,
it has been a rip-roaring success, one that
you should be embarrassed for having fallen
for. As a plan to reduce population, that's
strictly sci-fi. If that's the case, the SNAFU
is even bigger since the populations dying off
most successfully seem to be we Westerners.
But Indians, Mexicans, S. Americans...
citizens of nations and regions taking the
Ivermectin/HCQ route? Apparently they would be
the preponderant survivors.
So now that everyone knows we have been
mightily deceived, wouldn't there be some
better course of action for Big Pharma, the
NIH, CDC, NIAID and FDA that could admit
error, preserve profit, avoid criminal
charges, avoid all sorts of horrible (for Big
Pharma) outcomes, and actually benefit society
by combining everything we surely now know....
Well, since there is not the least hint from
them that they know we know they have been
caught out, perhaps we are in store for the
next big thing—oh so clever!—whether dreamed
up well in advance, or perhaps just recently
appearing on the drawing boards: the next
medical product that will seal the fate of
humanity in partnership with an ever-expanding
BIG PHARMA presence and profits-spree. If
spike protein has caused problems, why not
introduce (after a maximum have been mRNA'd of
course) a spike protein cleaner-upper, a
scavenger of spike protein residues in the
body that will solve all the residual
post-vaccination and post-COVID-19 disease
problems. Come one, come all! One dose of this
miracle oil will hoover up all harmful COVID
residues! Take a third mortgage on your house
if necessary! Is such a drug possible? If so,
you can bet your bottom dollar on it being
even more expensive than Remdesivir, and
available only for the privileged, the heavily
insured, and third mortgagees.
As Yogi Berra once quipped, "Predictions are
hard to make, especially about the future".
However, I would certainly be surprised if the
Big Pharma Phiasco is not destined for several
more entertaining chapters. Be ready. Don't
participate ! Stay well !! (read
more)