Money and Vaccines

Michael Moore 15 November 2020

The MHRA have a tender out. United Kingdom-London, Software Package and Information Systems Contract Award Notice which contains the following text

“The MHRA urgently seeks an artificial Intelligence (AI) software tool to process the expected high volume of COVID -19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADR’s reaction text are missed.”

Does this mean they are expecting a high number of adverse reactions and simply want to know how many there are?

Coincidently, the same day that Pfizer announced the vaccine for Covid will be ready, the CEO, Albert Bourla, sold 5.6 million dollars worth of stock.

I wonder if these two facts are related.

In Australia. Where the vaccine is poised for distribution after a ‘quick’ testing by a company with an impressive track record of being sued for adverse reactions to their skimpily tested drugs (AstraZencca) the Prime Minister has instituted legislation where one CANNOT sue any pharmaceutical company for any vaccination adverse effects. Hmmmm. Now why would you do that?

Perhaps it is because, AstraZeneca plc/AB a British-Swedish multinational pharmaceutical and biopharmaceutical company with headquarters in Cambridge, United Kingdom and Södertälje, Sweden, is notoriously corrupt having been fined a total of $1.149 billion over a history of civil and criminal offences including:

  • Giving illegal financial inducements to doctors while marketing a prostate cancer drug – misleading consumers into thinking one drug was superior to its older drug, which was losing its patent protection

  • Illegally marketing an anti-psychotic drug for uses not approved and failed to adequately describe its risks in an advertisement for the drug in a medical journal

  • In 2002 refusing to put a more conspicuous warning label on its lung cancer drug Iressa after several patients in Japan suffered pneumonia and some died

  • Misusing patent rules to shield its ulcer drug from generic competitors (fined 60m euros) Acted “unfairly and deceptively” in pricing a prostate cancer drug. Later hit with a $12.9m judgment

  • Violating US False Claims Act by failing to provide required rebates to state Medicaid programs

  • US subsidiary’s president and chief executive charged with replacing mothers and older female employees with young single women who were pressured into having sex with company executives used of transfer pricing techniques to dodge StgUK500m tax liability

  • Committed accounting violations in connection with improper payments made in Russia and China to boost drug sales.

According to Martin Kulldorff a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and a eminent biostatistician and epidemiologist whose research centers on the early detection and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks, opposing lockdowns has stated.

As history has shown, and as epidemiologists agree, the fastest and most natural way to protect the most vulnerable people is to achieve herd immunity in a community by the more numerous, least vulnerable people catching the virus as soon as possible, suffering just a little, if at all, as this then causes the virus to flame out when it cannot find new, non-immune victims. Accordingly, maskists, by their own logic, are actually slowing the achievement of herd immunity, which exposes the most vulnerable for longer than is otherwise necessary. … It seems to me then that, by maskist logic, they are the ones who are being selfish, since they are not willing to put their health marginally on the line for the benefit of the most vulnerable. I'm tired of being told that we normal people are the selfish ones. I'm also tired of seeing those signs in New York about "We're New York tough" combined with "Wear a mask." Hey New Yorkers, if you were actually tough, then you'd take one for the team, get the virus, suffer some mild symptoms, and help get to herd immunity faster.”

And according to Dr Zoe Harcombe Ph. D

1) Organisations invested in vaccines make money from vaccines. If people acquire natural immunity, they have reduced or no need for a vaccine and thus the potential gain for the vaccine company is reduced.

2) Locking people in their homes and other lockdown measures will reduce the number of people who acquire natural immunity.

Would this be by design perhaps? Or an error in judgement?

There have been thousands of cases where pharmaceutical companies have had to settle in court for drug adverse reactions. Here are just a few:

  1. Vaccine court settlement payouts increased in total $91.2 million in 2015, up from $22.8 million in 2014 to $114 million in 2015 — a 400% increase.

  2. Vaccine court settlement payments for flu shots increased the most, from $4.9 million in 2014 to $61 million in 2015 — an increase of more than 1000%, despite autumnal onslaughts every year of media/pr/advertising campaigns urging Americans to ‘get your flu shot,’ with total abandon for the statistical facts coming out of the vaccine court.

  3. Varicella (chicken pox) had the third biggest increase — from $0 in 2014 to $5.8 million in 2015. (No surprise shingles is on the rise among the elderly population, as recently vaccinated grandchildren continuously shed live virus to their unsuspecting elders.)

  4. Hepatitis B was the fourth largest increase in vaccine court settlements, increasing 321% in 2015 to more than $8 million in 2015 from $1.9 million in 2014.

  5. TDap/DTP/DPT and D/T shots were the fifth largest increase, leaping 75% in 2014 from $5.5 million to $9.8.

Since then there have been hundreds of other settlements worth billions of dollars.

There is no doubt that many drugs created do good work. However, drugs that are ‘produced’ quickly without the appropriate measures and tests have been shown to produce some devastating effects.

Producing a drug or vaccine within a year to combat a virus that is relatively mild and which, with herd immunity, would quickly dissipate, according to epidemiologists I hasten to add, not me, leads me to believe there is an ulterior motive for the creation and distribution of a ‘mass’ vaccine for a ‘mass’ vaccination program in which adverse effects are either discounted or simply monitored with no follow up for rectification.

I remain deeply suspicious.


Please share

111 views0 comments