to me, the giveaway was that the producers requested and obtained a TOTAL immunity from prosecution from side-effects
you do not need to be any kind of scientist to guess that what goes into your body is no good at all
Well, yes and no. From a purely risk aversion standpoint, it would make sense. The government was asking these companies to make a vaccine in record time and was willing to withdraw many of the usual safety protocols in order to make it possible. The vax companies wouldn’t agree to this unless they were also able to escape liability if/when the removal of those protocols proved to be problematic.
From a purely business and liability standpoint, it makes total sense. I don’t even blame them for that particular thing, but then there’s plenty of other awful things to blame them for as it relates to everything that’s happened. They lied over and over, the idea that they don’t have to release the “real data” for 75 years, the obvious fraud, the lying about side affects and percentages, and then the idea that people were forced to take an experimental drug (which is ultimately on the government)…there’s plenty of legit reasons that they should be hanging from lampposts..
But making an experimental medication available to someone with informed consent - not FORCING THEM - should be allowed, in my opinion. And if it’s not coerced, and everything is on the up and up, the the user assumes responsibility if it doesn’t go so well. But that’s a very specific scenario, and that’s not what happened, though we were sold on the idea that such a scenario is what we’d be dealing with.
It was a bait and switch that killed people.
you are just repeating the propaganda, it is really ingrained into your mind
what is propaganda ? a message that is designed to overcome other, opposite, messages
in this case, the main message is that companies had no confidence whatsoever on the product they made
no INFORMED consent is valid in this case, since there is NOTHING solid that will show you that the magic liquid is safe and effective
You misunderstand what I wrote.
I’m saying that had they done things properly, people should be free to try their product if they so choose.
Under the auspices of a proper “right to try” scenario, it necessarily means there is a “buyer beware principle” with an experimental medication. This is nothing new, and it’s logical. I’m saying I don’t have a problem with that particular principle so long as there is honesty on the side of the people running the trial. The fact is that with any experimental medication, no one is entirely sure if it’s safe or effective. That’s precisely what makes it “experimental” to begin with. It’s a fucking Hail Mary play.
The problem is that in this case, they took an experimental medicine, and not only abandoned all of the normal protocols that would be in place for a “right to try scenario”, but actually lied and committed fraud in order to justify the abandonment of those protocols.
Another way to put it is that we need to be very precise in our arguments against what they’ve done. Because if we’re not, then we could throw the entire idea of “right to try” out the window…which I don’t think is a good idea. We need to be sure to make a distinction between what they did here and what a proper “right to try” scenario actually looks like.
You are correct in saying that they had zero, or at least insufficient, evidence that the product actually worked. And then they lied about that. But the lie is the big issue here. The lack of confidence in safety or effectiveness should be implied as that’s pretty much the case with any experimental medication..that’s precisely what makes it “experimental”, because they don’t really know if it’s safe or effective. But see, in a legitimate “right to try scenario”, the test subject is aware of this. At the least, they aren’t lied to, and they certainly aren’t forced to take the experimental medication.
I’m trying to be as clear as I can here. Hopefully my intended message is getting through.
Another thing is that with the R&D being paid for by governments, the pharma companies should have (as a condition of their contract) been forced to supply the therapy at cost, with maybe a tiny fixed profit margin. The pharma companies took zero risk and gained patented therapies that they could sell at massive profit to a captive and forced market.
They not only killed people, they made a killing doing it.
Well if the entire program had been on the up and up in all respects, I would expect them to be able to make a profit. They are, after all, companies, and companies have to make profits to stay in business.
Granted, an exorbitant profit on the backs of people in a pandemic is something that I would take issue with, though we’d have to come to some agreement on what “exorbitant” actually means as without some agreed-upon definition, that concept is ambiguous and subjective. The argument for most cutting edge treatments being so expensive is that the R&D money is fronted by the company, thus they need to both make up for what they gave up in the initial investment PLUS turn a profit. I have to think that this is a legitimate argument in general, though I’m sure there is and has been gouging in many cases past. But then, as you pointed out, the government paid for the R&D allegedly, so the normal formula that’s applied shouldn’t be applied here. And then there are already laws against gouging in emergency situations for all sorts of other things, so that same principle should have also applied here.
In any case, all I’m saying is that I’m in no way against making a profit for providing a service that people willingly pay for and where they actually get what they were sold…but that is NOT what happened here..well, the profit part definitely happened…but it was fraudulent from the beginning and add to that the fact that people were coerced into it and many have died and will die as a result.
So, these fuckers are still defending their position based on a false premise (that being that all this shit was on the up and up), but this goes way beyond the scenario where I paid $1 for 5 apples and some of them had worms…that would be bad, but it’s nothing compared to what these fuckers have actually done, though they're essentially trying to make such a ludicrous equivocation…no, they’ve done far worse: they’ve violated people’s human rights and actually killed many of them, and then lied and continue to lie in order to keep committing the crime.
(post is archived)