Time for change?

[Borg Refinery]

The decision should be made by the patient, not science, and requires informed consent.  Anyone injecting the Covid junk should have said it was experimental and still on trial, or else they broke the Nuremberg Code for which doctors were hanged.

The doctors are good people who trusted the science, they should never be hanged for that

[papasmurf]

The decision should be made by the patient, not science, and requires informed consent.  Anyone injecting the Covid junk should have said it was experimental and still on trial, or else they broke the Nuremberg Code for which doctors were hanged.

Sorry but you have reached and gone beyond my not trying to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person limit.

[Scott777]

I leave decisions like that to medical science.

The decision should be made by the patient, not science, and requires informed consent.  Anyone injecting the Covid junk should have said it was experimental and still on trial, or else they broke the Nuremberg Code for which doctors were hanged.

[papasmurf]

Your comment has no relation to mine.  If it causes any problems at all, then kids should not be given it.

I leave decisions like that to medical science.

[Scott777]

Just where is the EVIDENCE that Covid vaccinations have caused widespread problems? Not references linked to tin foil hat wearing Faraday cage dwelling conspiracy theorists please.

Your comment has no relation to mine.  If it causes any problems at all, then kids should not be given it.

[papasmurf]

I would question the motives of giving Covid jabs to kids who have negligible risk from Covid.  It's not possible to help when there is no problem.  I'm sure big pharma knows that.

Just where is the EVIDENCE that Covid vaccinations have caused widespread problems? Not references linked to tin foil hat wearing Faraday cage dwelling conspiracy theorists please.

[Scott777]

They might not have deliberately wanted to keep people sick, but simply tried to do what they could to help some people with imperfect drugs that saved some lives and helped people

I would question the motives of giving Covid jabs to kids who have negligible risk from Covid.  It's not possible to help when there is no problem.  I'm sure big pharma knows that.

[Borg Refinery]

Looks like a load of rubbish to me. Why does a company have to pay smaller manufacturers to stop them reproducing a drug that is patented? It's patented, the clue is in the name, no one else can produce it until the patent runs out.

In 1984, Congress streamlined the process for generic-drug entry and determining whether a generic drug infringes existing patents. The law helped expand the generic sector, but the big drugmakers came up with a way to dilute Congress's plan. They would sue companies making generics for patent infringement, and then settle the lawsuits by paying those companies in exchange for not selling the generic version. Normally, when someone violates a patent, they're the one who must pay the patent holder—not the other way around. For that reason, this new technique is often called a "reverse-payment settlement."

Consider Gilead's alleged reaction to one generic competitor. When the Israeli drug company Teva Pharmaceuticals indicated that it would enter the market for Truvada, one of Gilead's top antiretrovirals, Gilead sued for patent infringement. But in the eventual settlement, Teva somehow came out ahead. According to the plaintiffs, Teva made $1.5 billion in exchange for staying out of the Truvada market for more than five years.

This is not how intellectual-property law ordinarily works. If I start a podcast and use a copyrighted song for theme music without permission, the record label won't pay me to stop. I'm the one who will be forced to pay. Pay-for-delay schemes look like something different: a way to prop up an invalid or expired patent. For the patent holder, it can be cheaper to pay rivals to stay out of the market than it would be to actually compete with them on price.

The plaintiffs in the antitrust lawsuit argue that Gilead knew its patents might not hold up in court. In other words, Gilead may not have had a legal right to keep Teva out of the market. This sort of thing is not uncommon. When challenged in court, many patents on brand-name drugs are found to be invalid or not infringed. To keep the profits from its patent monopoly flowing, according to the lawsuit, Gilead effectively paid Teva not to compete against it for several years. (Gilead rejects this allegation, arguing that its patents were valid and that the settlements actually allowed generics to arrive sooner. Teva, which is also a defendant in the suit, says that it settled with Gilead because it didn't think it could win a patent-infringement case.)

[Nick]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/

And this is what Big Pharma does to prevent generic drugs entering the market

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/pharmaceutical-generic-drugs-pay-for-delay/674410/

There have been lawsuits and injunctions too, but the USSC seemingly ruled they can't proceed some years ago, they've tried to block generics being on the market at all from what I've read

Big Pharma also contribute life saving drugs and R&D that save millions of lives around the world, they aren't bad people just ideologically motivated, as are we all and I shouldn't condemn them

Looks like a load of rubbish to me. Why does a company have to pay smaller manufacturers to stop them reproducing a drug that is patented? It's patented, the clue is in the name, no one else can produce it until the patent runs out.

[Borg Refinery]

They might not have deliberately wanted to keep people sick, but simply tried to do what they could to help some people with imperfect drugs that saved some lives and helped people

[Scott777]

Big Pharma also contribute life saving drugs and R&D that save millions of lives around the world, they aren't bad people just ideologically motivated, as are we all and I shouldn't condemn them

If we agreed that lives are also saved, which is possible, it would not contradict a financial motivation to keep them sick.  It's not profitable for people to die, but it is to keep them sick.  Being motivated by money is not a bad thing, but I would say it's pretty bad to lie and deceive to make money.  I don't recall big pharma providing public info that their injections were experimental and still on trial.  🤔

[Borg Refinery]

There is no proof, and I defy you to find any, that the media is funded by the Pharma. I have done work for GSK, GEA, Servier, Daiichi Sanko and I can assure you they don't need the need the media to sell their wares. Pharma make their money on patent drugs that have cost them millions to develop, once they become a non-patent drug and any manufacturer can make it.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/953104/pharma-industry-tv-ad-spend-us/

And this is what Big Pharma does to prevent generic drugs entering the market

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2023/06/pharmaceutical-generic-drugs-pay-for-delay/674410/

One reason for persistently high drug costs, according to many experts, is the exclusion of generic competition. Using a tactic known as "pay for delay," brand-name drug companies who hold the patents to blockbuster medications pay other companies to put off introducing generic equivalents. This lets them keep charging high prices.

There have been lawsuits and injunctions too, but the USSC seemingly ruled they can't proceed some years ago, they've tried to block generics being on the market at all from what I've read

Big Pharma also contribute life saving drugs and R&D that save millions of lives around the world, they aren't bad people just ideologically motivated, as are we all and I shouldn't condemn them

[Scott777]

There is no proof, and I defy you to find any, that the media is funded by the Pharma. I have done work for GSK, GEA, Servier, Daiichi Sanko and I can assure you they don't need the need the media to sell their wares.

It's indirect funding.  Media gets money from someone like the Bill Gates Foundation, and he gets money from his shares in big pharma.  They may not need the media to advertise the products, but it makes more money, so they do.  Even GB News pushes whatever Bill Gates wants.  All Perspectives Ltd, which is significantly influenced (via shareholders) by Dubai company, Legatum, has been funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.  Here are just examples, I'm sure it's the tip of the iceberg.

https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?page=2&q=BBC#committed_grants

[Nick]

Makes more sense for pro-vaxers to spread it, which means most of the media, which are largely funded by big pharma.  So there is your source of the misinformation you call "rumours".

There is no proof, and I defy you to find any, that the media is funded by the Pharma. I have done work for GSK, GEA, Servier, Daiichi Sanko and I can assure you they don't need the need the media to sell their wares. Pharma make their money on patent drugs that have cost them millions to develop, once they become a non-patent drug and any manufacturer can make it.

[Scott777]

Data for people who have carked it after a Covid vaccination , a whole 64 after many many millions of vaccinations. Result of Freedom of Information request. Far more at link with embedded links.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/adverseeffectsofcovid19vaccination2021to2024

Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination 2021 to 2024
Release date:
17 May 2024

Deaths registered as attributed to the COVID-19 vaccine in England and Wales up until July 2023 can be found in Table 14 of Monthly mortality analysis, England and Wales. The ICD-10 code is U12.9, 'COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use, unspecified'. Based on deaths registered between March 2020 and July 2023, in England, there were 63 deaths involving U12.9 and 55 deaths due to U12.9; in Wales, there was one death involving U12.9, and this was also listed as the underlying cause. 
Please note that deaths "involving" a cause refer to deaths that had this cause mentioned anywhere on the death certificate, whether as an underlying cause or not. Deaths "due to" a cause refer only to deaths that had this as the underlying cause of death. Figures usually consist of first registrations only. On occasion, after further investigation, a death can be re-registered as a different cause of death. For transparency of our statistics, these figures include re-registrations as well as initial registrations. 

 

Not very interesting, because a death could take years to happen as a result of slowly developing conditions.  Cancer, for example, requires a healthy immune system, and the injections weakened immune systems.  Still, it's illness that is more profitable for big pharma, not death.