PFIZER, the manufacturer of one of the mRNA experimental Covid-19 vaccines, last reported annual profits of $22billion, at least £2billion of which came from the NHS for the purchase of said vaccine. It is reckoned that Pfizer has made a total of $37billion from the international Covid vaccine rollout, and our government generously provided a further £548million to help distribute more than a billion doses to developing countries.
If ever there was an example of having your cake and eating it too, it is Pfizer’s manufacture and sale of the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, making vast profits in the process, and then having governments help them to distribute it further. Our government gave them a further leg up to the unrestricted distribution of vaccines by refusing to remove their indemnity from prosecution in the event that their vaccine proved to have harmful side effects. The outcome of this is obvious: harmful side effects including deaths, some of them children, are manifestly an issue with the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine, yet its rollout continued unabated.
It transpired at the end of last month that Pfizer uses a considerable chunk of its profits to tilt the playing field in its favour. Drug companies are not prevented from advertising and Pfizer dedicated $2.8billion to advertising in 2022, an increase of $800million on the previous year. It seems that, when it came to the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine rollout, Pfizer were not taking any chances. However, the money they use to tilt the playing field goes way beyond advertising and this additional money is used to get others to promote the vaccine on their behalf, often unknown to those who are being influenced in this way.
Investigative journalist Lee Fang has exposed how Pfizer provides funds in the form of ‘grants’ to ‘consumer, doctor, and medical groups, as well as public health organisations and civil nonprofits’ and that many of these ‘did not disclose the funding they received from Pfizer while they were advocating for policies that would force workers to get the vaccine’.
For example, one company, the Chicago Urban League, promoted vaccines amongst the black community and one of their functionaries dismissed concerns that vaccine mandates would have a disproportionate effect on black people. This organisation received a grant of $100,000 from Pfizer; it was not disclosed on their website.
That Pfizer provides such grants is a matter of record, and fact-checkers have at their disposal an extraordinary 28-page document from the company listing more than 500 groups to which it donates money. But while Pfizer makes no secret of the organisations to which it donates money, many of these organisations do not disclose it.
It is strange that certain groups do not disclose their Pfizer funding. Some examples uncovered by Fang are the National Consumers League, the Immunization Partnership, the American Pharmacists Association, the American College of Preventive Medicine, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, the American College of Emergency Physicians, the National Hispanic Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Another thing that the above have in common is that they all lobbied one way or another for vaccine mandates.
Normally, when drug companies provide grants they insist on being acknowledged. It raises the question of whether the conditions for Pfizer granting such funding to particular bodies was contingent upon their support for vaccine mandates and that they did not necessarily have to advertise that funding. There is no coverage of these issues in Global Health Now, the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University newsletter which prints not a word of criticism of the Pfizer mRNA Covid-19 vaccine. But it receives funding, which is declared, from Pfizer. Medscape, another organ which publishes generally positive news about the Pfizer vaccine rollout, also appears on the Pfizer list as a recipient of funding. In fact, there appears to be no coverage of this issue anywhere in the mainstream media.
In summary, Pfizer have bought their way into domination of a global market with a vaccination that, given the extremely low risk associated with Covid, is unnecessary, that barely works (absolute risk reduction of around 1 per cent) and with demonstrable harms. How’s that for a scam?