COMMENT: Hi Martin! Thank you for all you do. I was discussing the baby formula shortage with my 94-year-old Italian grandmother, and it opened my eyes to how resourceful people can be when left with no alternatives.
Baby formula was not an option in Sicily when her children were born. In fact, she did not learn about baby formula or disposable diapers until she immigrated to America. Disposable diapers were still not an option for poor immigrants and she cleaned each diaper by hand. As for formula, as most mothers know, occasionally it is not possible to produce enough milk for the day. Cow’s milk was never an option as they thought it would harm the baby.
My grandmother explained how she would put a piece of bread in a pot of boiling water, remove the bread, and use the water to feed her baby. Everyone in the town knew one another, and if a woman was having trouble producing milk, she simply would bring her baby to another woman in the town. I asked her if the women charged for their milk and she looked at me as if I were crazy. They did it from the goodness of their heart. There was such a strong sense of community that everyone in the town worked together. I cannot see that happening in today’s society.
REPLY: Times certainly have changed. German chemist Justus von Liebig invented baby formula in 1865 but it was not widely marketed or trusted for decades. Formula was taboo before companies like Nestle launched global marketing campaigns to push mothers to choose formula over breastmilk.
Wet nurses have existed throughout history. Lactating women were often hired by aristocrats or wealthier individuals to feed their babies. It was not uncommon for poor women who were unable to breastfeed to temporarily give up their baby and become a wet nurse for a different family, hoping to earn enough money essentially to buy her child back. Slaves throughout history were also forced to act as wet nurses for the families they served.
In ancient Rome, they had the columna lactarian (milk column) where mothers could bring their babies and receive milk from a wet nurse. More troubling, the site also became a notorious location for mothers to abandon their unwanted children.
The profession of wet nursing still exists, although you will not find listings on job application sites. The concept of having another women breastfeed a baby is still taboo in modern society and largely unregulated. According to numerous sources, women in the United States will pay a minimum of $1,000 per week to hire a wet nurse, making the option still only feasible for the wealthy. We may see a resurgence of the profession as alternative options no longer exist and people are desperate for additional sources of income.
Governments are rapidly decreasing parental rights in all areas from health care to education. A new bill in California will now permit children as young as 12-years-old to take the COVID vaccine without their parents’ permission. Senators Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Richard Pan (D-Sacramento) pushed SB 866 through the Senate and expanded it to cover any FDA-approved vaccine. The bill passed by just one vote.
Do we trust 12-year-olds to make important medical decisions alone? Are they aware of their current medications, potential allergies, and the repercussions of the vaccine? If a child were to experience an adverse reaction, their parents would not know how to help. California public schools are clearly pushing for these unnecessary vaccines, and vulnerable children may feel pressured by other authoritarian figures to take the shot without their parents knowing. This teaches children to trust the government over their parents, who they should begin keeping secrets from at a young age.
Free handouts will not combat inflation. The politicians (or their advisors) know this fact but continue to issue free money in exchange for votes. Governor Newsom is proposing spending $11.5 billion to provide Californians with a $400 gas stimulus check. Those with more than one registered vehicle could receive two checks. This is part of Newsom’s $18.1 billion package to “combat inflation” and encourage people to vote for him to receive free money.
Other Democrats are proposing $200 gas stimulus checks for each resident, regardless of whether they even own a car or have a license. Newsom’s plan would also provide free public transportation for three months, which will cost taxpayers $750 million. There was bipartisan support to suspend the state’s gas tax, but that would be too logical.
California has the highest gas prices and gas taxes in the nation. Lawmakers have decided to raise the gas tax by 5.6% to reel in $8.8 billion. Removing the tax would be less costly for the state than distributing stimulus checks, but it is less likely to garner voters for Newsom, who is making endless promises leading up to the midterm elections.
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 14, 2022 | Sundance
As more data leading to increased scrutiny surfaces, Neil Oliver (U.K.) and Mark Steyn (Canada) discuss the continued suppression and censorship of any COVID discussion that is antithetical to the official position of western government.
The suppression/censorship of reasonable discussion is a unique element of the COVID framework that has been maintained for well over two years. As the danger and fear have subsided, one must reasonably ask why the continued need for this level of control?
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 14, 2022 | Sundance
Comrade dissidents, in his weekly monologue Neil Oliver draws attention to the World Health Organization (WHO) effort to assemble the Global Pandemic Response Treaty, a collective pact with the industrious mission to control the threat of human parasites.
As Oliver notes, the objective of the W.H.O. mission is to coordinate a whole-of-planet approach, by giving instructions to all governmental signatories for how to best manage the problematic behavior of free-range citizens. People are the dangerous carbon they seek to mitigate. WATCH:
[Transcript] – “Anyone remember voting for the World Health Organization to take control of our lives? No? Me, neither. And yet here we are, teetering on the brink of joining most of the countries of the world in surrendering our national sovereignty under the terms of a proposed new pandemic treaty.
Once British ink is dry on the necessary paperwork, we and most of the rest of the billions living on planet earth will, in the event of another pandemic, take our instructions not from politicians we actually voted for – and could, hypothetically at least, have the option of getting rid of – but from the unelected, faceless, bureaucrats of the WHO.
This is no conspiracy theory, by the way. No tin hats required. This is real and happening now. And a whole lot of people would rather you weren’t paying attention.
The WHO is a fabulously wealthy offshoot of the United Nations. It has its head office in Geneva and is presently headed by Ethiopian-born Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Know much about him?
No, nor me. He and it are funded by 194 member states and also by donations from private entities. As things stand, most of its money comes from the United States, from Communist China and from computer salesman and international man of mystery Bill Gates.
Let us remember that for the past two years, the WHO has loudly celebrated the approach taken by China to the handling of Covid-19.
Even now, as tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens remain locked in their homes in scores of cities across that country … and after unknown numbers have died in those circumstances, including some who committed suicide by leaping to their deaths from their tower block imprisonment … the WHO continues to applaud the tactics of the Chinese Communist Party that is its benefactor.
For his own part Bill Gates, who struggles even to control viruses in the software sold by Microsoft, is on record admiring the Draconian approach taken by Australia – to the extent that he has said that in his opinion the world would have had greater success in eliminating the disease – the one that more than likely leaked from a lab in China – if only more nations had followed the Australian model, locked everyone down and sought Zero Covid.
Now we in Great Britain – without so much as a by your leave from our leaders – and along with around 95 per cent of the world’s population – must contemplate a future in which decisions about what we will be ordered – ordered – to do in the face of another pandemic will be taken by the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats of the Chinese Communist Party-worshipping WHO, under the unseemly influence of a tech billionaire with no more qualifications in the fields of medicine and disease control than I have.
It is worth remembering that President Donald Trump insisted on divorce from the WHO – on the grounds that it was too close to China, only for President Biden to remarry them again in 2021. All of that is history, however. In a matter of days, the World Health Assembly will meet in Geneva for a vote on the treaty. The target date for final ratification is in May 2024, but by then the power grab will have long been completed.
Amendments written into the proposed treaty by the re-enamored Biden administration will see 194 nations cede sovereignty over national health care decisions to the WHO. The WHO would thereby have decision-making power over and above our own government – and every other government.
Consider this – when you watch footage of the 26 million people of Shanghai locked down in their homes, their cats and dogs beaten to death in the street … the WHO would, by the terms of the new treaty, have the power to impose the same on cities here. Know too, that under the terms of the treaty, the WHO does not – does not – have to show any data to legitimize its conclusions or decisions.
It is also worth knowing, to say the least, that it would be up to the WHO to define what the next pandemic is. Seeing how things are going, I would hardly be surprised to hear about a pandemic of obesity, or of heart attacks – followed by the lockdowns and other restrictions to deal with same.
No doubt lockdowns to fix the climate can’t be far away either. In the case of climate, the WHO might draw the conclusion that we, the human species, are the virus. Who knows what they might conclude and decide then?
Be in no doubt – this so-called pandemic treaty is the single, greatest global power grab that any of us has seen in our lifetime. It is nothing less than the groundwork, the laying of deep foundations for global governance through the WHO.
Many of those opposed to the treaty – and there is an online petition here in the UK seeking to demand that the matter be discussed in parliament – have pointed to the, shall we say, compromised position of the WHO itself. Much has been made of the notion that a fish rots from the head.
Back in 2017, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was appointed as a good will ambassador of the WHO, by Tedros, and only dropped after shrieks of outrage from those who pointed out that Mugabe might have been a controversial choice of poster boy for an organization notionally committed to the wellbeing of living people. A glance at the 34-member Executive Board of the WHO reveals seats occupied by such human rights luminaries as Syria and East Timor, among others.
And remember all the time the links the WHO has with Communist China – a state with more human rights abuses under its belt than any decent human being might want to contemplate. And that’s before we get to the looming presence of the world’s fourth richest man, the one and only Bill Gates, and his Foundation, whose commitment to mass vaccination is unsurpassed.
As far as I am concerned, the whole thing stinks – like the aforementioned dead fish. The approach taken to Covid by the Chinese Government and endorsed by the WHO was never about health, I say, and always about control.
Just as there is more than one way to skin a cat – one beaten to death in a Shanghai Street by a man in a hazmat suit armed with a stick, perhaps – so there is more than one way to seek to impose undemocratic, authoritarian control upon a population.
Just as for instance, a government desiring such control might try frightening the living daylights out of its people, telling them that if they don’t take their medicine – medicine that Big Pharma knows in advance might kill or maim some of them – that they won’t be able to travel, leave the country, go to work, or the pub, or the cinema, or to school.
A government or indeed any unelected body seeking total control might tell its people that unless they do what they are told they won’t ever be getting back to anything even resembling their old normal lives. That is not how you protect people from a pandemic. That is how you exploit and manipulate the very notion of a pandemic in order to seize and retain control.
And then, while they’re either still terrified, or just plain exhausted and demoralized by the whole damned experience, why not slip through all manner of new legislation shaped to mop up the dregs of whatever old-fashioned freedoms and rights remain behind?
I am, even by my own estimate, the unlikeliest of rebels.
All I know is that I have, for a period now measurable in years, been opposed to those in power here, and also all but a handful of those vying to replace them. For the longest time I have cared not a jot what those jokers try and tell me to do. The evidence coming out now, about lockdown harms, about vaccine harms, tells me I was right to follow my own path. In short, I have had enough of the lot of them. They do not speak for me or in any way matter to me.
If this pandemic treaty comes to pass, I will disregard it. I will ignore any future lockdown ordained by any power. I will take no mandated vaccine, not while I have breath in my body.
The WHO and all its little wizards can take a running jump. The men in suits can sign whatever treaties they want. I don’t care. Not one of them – not Johnson, Trudeau, Macron and the rest – has the stomach for the wet-work that would be required to put their authoritarian plans into action.
We owe it to ourselves. Perhaps we even owe it to them – to tell them that they are living in a fantasy world of their own creation and that we want none of it.
Let them have the gall to seek to sign away our freedoms in such a high-handed manner, this month, or in 2024. I for one am not playing along.
As Patrick MacGoohan’s character said in The Prisoner – I am not a number, I am a free man.” (link)
Posted originally on the conservative tree house on May 13, 2022 | Sundance
Fake News CNN’s Jake Tapper asks White House Chief Medical Advisor Anthony Fauci why the White House is sending out false information, aka ‘disinformation’, about when the COVID vaccines were available. Fauci giggles, laughs and says “I have no idea.” WATCH:
U.S. politics has devolved into a grand pretense of a theatrical performance keeping everyone distracted from the severe damage being inflicted by the political ideologues within the Biden administration.
I guarantee you if someone were just to ask Joe Biden at a presser who his Interior Secretary or EPA Administrator were, he’d have absolutely no idea. Biden is purposefully and completely isolated from the policies being carried out by the people running the administration. Biden has no idea what they are doing. None.
Clueless and disconnected Joe Biden is a shallow, empty and at times explosively angry vessel of nothingness. The entire world can see it.
The Australian government is spending millions on an ad campaign to encourage citizens to take a third COVID vaccine. Their method of marketing is quite surprising and I question who would be enticed to take the vaccine upon watching this ad. The campaign features individuals who received the two jabs — and still fell deathly ill with COVID.
You risked your life to take an experimental vaccine, twice, and STILL contracted the virus. Your symptoms were allegedly life-threatening, so the theory that the vaccine will lessen symptoms is moot here. All of that and people are still willingly taking the third vaccine. Cognitive dissonance is strong here.
Nearly 72% of Southern Australians are triple jabbed, yet the government feels it is worth spending $2 million to target that remaining portion who likely do not want another useless vaccine with known side effects. Governments across the globe were hoping we would all be mindless sheep, politely queuing each season for another immunization. Enough is enough.
By joelshirschhorn medical researcher, analyst at Joel S. Hirschhorn | Telling the truth with good data Published originally on TrialSite News on May. 12, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
A global medical mystery is being aggressively pursued by medical researchers. The core issue is that a relatively small fraction of people despite high exposure to COVID have not gotten ill with COVID infection. Think of health workers in hospitals in contact with many seriously ill COVID patients. Also, members of households that stood out because unlike others in the home who got ill with COVID they did not get infected. The mystery is what explains how highly exposed individuals did not get ill with COVID infection.
There are two main ways of explaining resistance to COVID. One is that some people have strengthened their immune systems by any of a number of actions taken before or during the pandemic. For example, some may have elevated levels of vitamin D in their blood by taking high doses of supplements. The other explanation that appeals to medical researchers is that some people have a genetic makeup that gives them total defense against COVID infection,
TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.
What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines. Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.
The Last Market: Young Children
While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society.
To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission. Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on.
Demand for Vaccines Wane
But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.
Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.
Some Possible Explanations
Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.
Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”
Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.
Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:
Adults 50 and above
People with comorbidities or other risks
High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)
According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China.
More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.
Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?
The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?
Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.
This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.
Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)
2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.
TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response. TrialSite Staff by Staff at TrialSite | Quality Journalism
May. 10, 2022, 9:00 a.m.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
Vaccine producers such as Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson and Johnson (Janssen), AstraZeneca, and others understand that unless there are continued government mandates effectively priming the pump of demand, those individuals with a preference for COVID-19 immunization have already gone ahead with the procedure.
What’s left is a market for boosters and what could become some sort of annual shot available for targeted populations. Of course, in some markets, young children are still a target for COVID-19 vaccines. Regardless, companies now operate in a quite different environment now, than they did in the period of late 2020 through 2021: a period driven by massive government spending, heavy industry influence on the regulatory process, risk-sharing, and the like to a more traditional competitive marketplace.
The Last Market: Young Children
While the children’s markets in places like America are still relevant, awaiting approval, what’s becoming apparent will be the emphasis on booster shots. In the world’s most lucrative drug market, America, Pfizer, and Moderna will more than likely persist as market leaders vying for the parental demands of children as public health agencies such as the CDC continue to emphasize that the risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 vaccine favor by a long-shot vaccination. The point of view is that there are no risk-free choices and that it’s better to be safe than sorry with the very youngest members of society.
To date, the CDC recommends the Pfizer vaccine for both the 5-11 age and 12 to 17 cohort while not recommending Moderna. Under 4 is the last market segment the vaccine makers vie for, and if the FDA authorizes, then Pfizer would own that market. A potential battle emerges over this cohort (aged 4-11) as a growing movement concerned for the safety associated with the vaccines, especially the mRNA-based products, gains momentum to question the mass vaccination on this young population. Critics argue that the original premise for mandates and the like was to control community transmission. Given substantial waning vaccine effectiveness combined with mutating variants, critics suggest the risks of serious infection and death are too low, and the safety issues are higher than the government is letting on.
Demand for Vaccines Wane
But demand for vaccines is flat in much of the world. In America, there is little uptick in vaccination as the “fully vaccinated” defined as receiving the two jabs of either Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna or one jab from Janssen equals 66.8% of the population while about 30.7% of the population opted for a booster dose.
Meanwhile, TrialSite, on several occasions, has chronicled a global glut of COVID-19 vaccines and therapeutics, especially in places like India, the world’s second-highest populated country. In places like Australia, where the death rate associated with COVID-19 has absolutely skyrocketed despite high immunization rates, the public health agencies and politicians continue to promote booster doses as the answer. TrialSite reported recently that Australian politicians in an election season essentially pretend that times are back to normal despite record numbers of cases, near-record hospitalizations, and double the deaths in the first months of 2022 than all of 2020 and 2021 combined.
Some Possible Explanations
Reuters’ Michael Erman and Manas Mishra write that vaccine producers such as Novavax and CureVac, the German mRNA-vaccine maker in partnership with GlaxoSmithKline, seek to target this booster market. Novavax still awaits FDA authorization despite the fact that much of the developed world, from Europe to Canada and Japan to the WHO, have authorized the use of the Novavax vaccine.
Meanwhile, the outlook for Janssen and AstraZeneca (Oxford) is that bright, report the Reuters journalists. According to Hartaj Singh, an analyst from Oppenheimer & Co., “It becomes a very competitive game with companies battling it out with pricing and for market share, even for vaccines that are considered to be the best, like Pfizer and Moderna.”
Interestingly, Pfizer’s CEO Albert Bourla went on the record in an interview recently that those adults that have opted to receive a COVID-19 vaccine are not likely to start accepting shots now in a recognition that the mega push for vaccine administration has come and gone.
Moderna has pegged the unfolding market as the annual shot market, targeting the following:
Adults 50 and above
People with comorbidities or other risks
High-risk occupations (e.g., healthcare, etc.)
According to the estimates of Stephane Bancel, Moderna’s CEO, this emerging annual shot market totals 1.7 billion, representing 21% of the global population. The mRNA-based vaccines are more expensive and cumbersome to distribute and store, hence a sizeable chunk of that estimated target may opt for other vaccines such as the two recently touted by vaccine insiders at WHO including a plant-based vaccine from Canada and one from China.
More than likely Western Europe and America will represent central markets for sales for Pfizer and Moderna who will move toward more competitive, targeted responsive strategies as large government pre-purchases are probably going to be far less. Moreover, TrialSite suggests what were cozy relationships between industry and government agencies will become less so as the various governments’ responses to the pandemic will be a hot topic, especially in democracies in current election cycles.
Key Question: A flu shot model or something else?
The Reuters writers posed an important question in the recent piece: will the likes of Pfizer and Moderna starting this fall market a tailored, redesigned vaccine targeted relevant variants of concern (e.g., Omicron, BA.2, etc.)?
Both Moderna and Pfizer executives are on the record that they are developing Omicron-targeted vaccines.
This becomes an important topic as even the mainstream media starts to become slightly critical of the pandemic response, including mRNA-based vaccine makers that never modified the vaccine product once. The vaccine authorized and approved in the United States was developed based on the original Wuhan variant of SARS-CoV-2 which didn’t seem to make it in circulation to America nor most of the world.
Revenues Decline (but still unprecedented)
2023 sales numbers, while still staggering as compared to historical precedent in the pharmaceutical industry, are nonetheless, on the decline. Reuters reports $17 billion projected for Pfizer-BioNTech (down nearly half from $34 billion) and $10 billion for Moderna as compared to $23 billion in 2022. Sales will continue to drop because enormous fortunes were generated in the winner-take-all pandemic market.
TrialSite suggests the COVID-19 pandemic response must be seriously evaluated due to levels of bias, political interference, and potentially corruption at an unprecedented level. Should the political conditions change in the United States for example, leading to serious inquiries, the pandemic winners may incur unexpected costs.
After 16 months of major COVID-19 immunization initiatives worldwide, government appetite for COVID-19 vaccine products appears to morph into a more focused, market-based, targeted booster series, a change that vaccine producers are now adjusting to accommodate. With a confluence of forces, from COVID-19 vaccine gluts to increasing numbers of producers to leeriness of waning effectiveness due to highly transmissible variants, the market drivers, heavily driven by government, give way to an unfolding new reality.
In the United States, like in many other nations, including those aligned with the World Health Organization (WHO), centered responses to COVID-19 emphasized production and distribution of a maximum number of vaccines with targets of achieving at least 70% vaccination. That effort, again coordinated to some degree by groups such as WHO, led to the inoculation of about 4.68 billion people (according to Our World in Data) worldwide, or neatly 60% of humanity, representing an unprecedented pandemic response.
The FDA has finally admitted what we knew all along – the vaccine is not safe. The FDA said it is limiting the availability of Johnson & Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine as it does indeed cause blood clots. The agency also noted that the vaccine presents a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome.
The health agencies are still pushing the vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer. How are they any different? The US government has a long history of punishing Johnson & Johnson for their illegal activities, from asbestos-laced baby powder to cancerogenic sunscreen. Yet, all pharmaceutical manufacturers are exempt from penalty for the COVID-19 vaccine, citing a national emergency.
FDA’s vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks said that the risk of death is still better than not getting the jab and said Johnson & Johnson’s version may be used as a last resort. Johnson & Johnson was hoping to rake in $3.5 billion this year from the vaccine alone. All of this comes down to money and control. The government and businesses forced mandates with complete disregard for public health. The talking heads gaslit the world for years into believing anyone who questioned the vaccine was a conspiracy theory lunatic, unfit for society.
They have known the truth all along. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine came into question in April 2021. Here is Fauci maintaining that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine was “safe and effective” despite knowing it could be deadly:
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 