Tag: big pharma

Gender ideology is a boon to Big Pharma and threat to parental rights

Parents across the nation are facing a new threat to their children: the transgender-industrial complex. For different but sometimes overlapping reasons, the medical establishment, Big Pharma, the culture industry and government agencies are leading our kids on the road toward “transitioning” — whether parents like it or not. 

For the private-economy actors, especially, the spread of gender ideology is a big boon to their bottom line.

To be sure, people experiencing gender dysphoria deserve compassionate care. But that’s very different from enabling minors in a vulnerable state of mind in these sexually confusing times to irreversibly alter their bodies with the latest in medical and pharmaceutical science. 

Actually, that bit about the latest science isn’t quite right. Medroxyprogesterone acetate, a common drug in “gender-affirming therapy,” has long been used to chemically castrate sex offenders.

Another widely used medication is Lupron, a controversial hormone blocker. Lupron was initially developed to lower testosterone levels in men with prostate cancer, effectively chemically castrating them. It’s now used as a puberty blocker in the booming business of “transitioning” children.

Keep reading

Big Pharma has made BILLIONS from selling Wuhan coronavirus “vaccines” while simultaneously funding the media liars who broadcast pandemic fear campaigns

Big pharmaceutical companies have made billions of dollars from the sale of Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines.

Pfizer, BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson have all made or are expected to make billions from the sale of the COVID-19 vaccines by the end of the year. (Related: Big money for Big Pharma: World Bank to inject more money into Big Pharma’s accounts.)

The biggest winners are Pfizer and its German partner BioNTech. These two corporations got a headstart over their competitors in the creation of the COVID-19 vaccines.

The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were the first to supposedly receive positive results. Because of this, its vaccine was the first to get emergency use authorizations from drug regulatory bodies in the United States and the European Union.

Because of their headstart, Pfizer and BioNTech were able to make the most money from selling COVID-19 vaccines. Pfizer alone raked in over $10.8 billion in the first half of 2021 alone. The company has already raised its outlook for the rest of the year. It expects to make at least $33.5 billion in vaccine sales before 2022.

On Tuesday, Aug. 10, BioNTech reported making $7.3 billion during the first half of 2021. The company expects full-year revenues from the COVID-19 vaccines to be about 15.9 billion euros ($18.6 billion). This is a significant increase from its previous forecast of 12.4 billion euros ($14.5 billion).

This forecast would push BioNTech into the ranks of the world’s top 20 drugmakers by revenue this year. BioNTech recently announced that it had signed contracts to supply nations with 2.2 billion doses of the vaccine for delivery by the end of the year, and at least another billion doses for 2022 and beyond.

Company co-founder and CEO Ugur Sahin also recently announced that it and Pfizer have delivered at least one million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine.

Moderna reported making $5.9 billion in the first six months of the year. It expects to make over $20 billion by the end of 2021 in revenues.

Keep reading

Pfizer sells $7.8 billion in Covid shots in the second quarter, raises 2021 guidance on vaccine sales

Pfizer said Wednesday it sold $7.8 billion in Covid-19 shots in the second quarter and raised its 2021 sales forecast for the vaccine to $33.5 billion from $26 billion, as the delta variant spreads and scientists debate whether people will need booster shots.

The company’s second-quarter financial results also beat Wall Street expectations on earnings and revenue. Here’s how Pfizer did compared with what Wall Street expected, according to average estimates compiled by Refinitiv:

  • Adjusted earnings per share: $1.07 per share vs. 97 cents per share expected
  • Revenue: $18.98 billion vs. $18.74 billion forecast

Pfizer expects an adjusted pretax profit in the high 20% range of revenue for the vaccine.

The company now expects full-year earnings in the range of $3.95 to $4.05 per share. That’s up from its prior range of $3.55 to $3.65 per share. It expects revenue in the range of $78 billion to $80 billion, up from its previous estimate of $70.5 billion to $72.5 billion.

Keep reading

CDC senior scientist: ‘We trashed data showing vaccine-autism link in African-American boys’

Here is the full statement by current CDC Senior Scientist on Vaccine-Autism questions: Dr. William Thompson. Stay tuned to this website for an update on the story, soon.

I regret that my [CDC] coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the Journal of Pediatrics.

My primary job duties while working in the immunization safety branch from 2000 to 2006 were to lead or colead three major vaccine safety studies. The MADDSP MMR-Autism Cases 
Control Study was being carried out in response to the Wakefield Lancet study that suggested an association between the MMR vaccine and an autism-like health outcome.
There were several major concerns among scientists and consumer advocates outside the CDC in the fall of 2000 regarding the execution of the Verstraeten study.

One of the important goals that was determined upfront in the spring of 2001 before any of these studies started was to have all three protocols vetted outside the CDC prior to the start of the analyses so that consumer advocates could not claim that we were presenting analyses that suited our own goals and biases.
       
We hypothesized that if we found statistically significant effects at either 18- or 36-month thresholds, we would conclude that vaccinating children early with MMR vaccine could lead to autism-like characteristics or features.
       
We all met and finalized the study protocol and analysis plan. The goal was to not deviate from the analysis plan to avoid the debacle that occurred with the Verstraeten Thimerosal study published in Pediatrics in 2003.
       
At the September 5 meeting, we discussed in detail how to code race for both the sample and the birth certificate sample. At the bottom of table 7, it also shows that for the 
nonbirth certificate sample, the adjusted race effect statistical significance was huge.
       
All the authors and I met and decided sometime between August and September 2002 not to report any race effects for the paper. Sometime soon after the meeting, where we decided to exclude reporting any race effects, the coauthors scheduled a meeting to destroy documents related to the study.

The remaining four coauthors all met and brought a big garbage can into the meeting room and reviewed and went through all the hard copy documents that we had thought we should discard and put them in a huge garbage can.
       
However, because I assumed it was illegal and would violate both FOIA and DOJ requests, I kept hard copies of all documents in my office, and I retained all associated computer files.

Keep reading