A polycrisis is a situation where several crises take place at the same time. The various crises may or may not be intersecting. Unless one is living in a cave, it is impossible not to be conscious of multiple crises that are currently affecting humanity globally. The bombardment of misinformation, disinformation and malinformation, and suppression of facts, by the public, the state, and media, makes for a bewildering complication of entangled clusterfuck beyond the average guy to unravel and discern the truth.
Rahm Emanuel, one time Obama adviser, famously said during the 2008 financial turmoil to "never let a crisis go to waste". He reprised the quote in 2020 relating to the pandemic. The origin of this quote is unknown, but Emanuel has embellished the Democrats with the proclivity to spin every crisis for political advantage. Quick to see opportunities for weaponising the Covid-19 crisis, Democrats mounted the pandemic tiger early and found fellowship in riders of profiteers, power-seekers, a dumpster truckful load of sycophantic opportunists and some good-intentioned do-gooders whose knee jerk reaction to the fear mongering shut down their ability for critical thinking.
It is very unfortunate that under the excuse of preventing misinformation, many states have clamped down on, and discouraged even academic discussions, and chosen instead to rely on narratives and circular justifications from the very parties that originated the crises, themselves becoming agents of disinformation. The consequence is officialdom the world over is finding itself very late on the curve against a tide of rising excess deaths and stupendous incidence of vaccine-induced medical conditions many scientists warned years earlier. Having painted themselves to a corner, and unable to admit policy miss-steps, the alternative is to stick to indefensible positions on the vaccines, and suppress or manipulate data and emerging new evidence.
To have a better understanding of the Covid-19 pandemic, one needs to step back and take in a big picture view.
Types of drugs - Chemical-based, biologics and mRNA vaccines:
Chemical-based drugs have been the cornerstone of modern medicine. These traditional small molecule drugs are produced through chemical synthesis in a laboratory. The production process is more straightforward and typically involves a series of chemical reactions to produce the final compound. Advantages of chemical-based drugs are more predictable behavior, easier to reproduce, regulatory process somewhat more streamlined, more often cheaper than those produced by biologics, chemical synthesis process is typically well-established and easier to scale. Traditional chemical-based pharmas produce a wide range of drugs, including those for chronic conditions.
Biotech pharmas focus on developing biologic products derived from living organisms. Biologics are large, complex molecules such as proteins, antibodies, or nucleic acids that are typically produced using biotechnology methods like genetic engineering. Living cells are cultured and genetically modified to produce the desired therapeutic proteins. This process is complex, requires sophisticated bioreactors, strict control of environmental conditions, stringent regulatory scrutiny, extensive clinical testing and a demonstration of safety, efficacy, and manufacturing consistency. Thus longer timelines for development and higher costs. Biotech companies focus on specialized and cutting-edge therapies, and in cases where small molecule drugs are less effective.
The SARS-Cov2 virus has a large protein on its exterior called the spike-protein. This spike protein attaches to the ACE2 receptor of cells and facilitates the entry of the genome of the virus to enter the cell where it then produces more viruses. Biotech pharma produces synthetic RNA which are molecules of ribonucleic acid that carries a long string of nucleotides. The messenger type of RNA (mRNA) is encased in lipid nanoparticles and injected into the arm muscles where it enters our cells. The mRNA is basically a code that makes our DNA to get the cells to produce the spike proteins of the virus. The mRNA vaccines such as those from Pfizer and Moderna are considered as biologics because they manufacture living organisms although production takes place in our bodies.
Big pharmas protect profits with M&A model:
Pharmas spend huge sums of money on R&D hoping for a block-buster money-spinner drug where their patent gives them exclusivity for a number of years. Patents depend on jurisdictions and generally could be for 20 years. However, since patents commence on date of registration and it takes years for a product to be developed. tested and ready for market, pharmas actually have probably about 10-12 years exclusivity to sell. Sometimes, for various reasons, the patent could be extended, giving pharmas additional years of exclusivity. When patents run out, many smaller pharmas cash in on the generic market at much cheaper prices. Big pharmas protect their market by buying up smaller pharmas via mergers and acquisitions. This has resulted in the market being monopolised by several too-big-to-fail Big Pharmas. There are now only 10-20 big names in the business which include Pfizer, J&J, Roche, Novartis, Merck, Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers, Eli Lilly, Bayer, Takeda, etc.
The patent cliff:
The patent cliff in the pharma industry is used to describe the time when a patent runs out and the companies' cashflow from its exclusivity of the branded drug comes to an end. According to a study by Ernst & Young, the top 20 pharmas have about US$180b sales at stake between now and 2028 when many brands hit the patent cliff.
The M&A route of protection is now not possible as traditional small pharmas have all been acquired. Big pharmas now turn to acquisition of small biotech companies especially those with promises of hitting a block-bluster biologic drug. The same big pharmas are themselves also switching into R&D and production of biologic drugs.
Unlike chemical-based drugs, biologics are impossible to replicate. Competitors cannot make generics and are compelled to make 'biosimilar' products. Biologic drugs are complex, large-molecule medications derived from living organisms, and even slight variations between different brands can potentially impact their safety and effectiveness. A biosimilar drug is not an identical drug, which means a patient's treatment cannot be interchanged without consequence. Unlike generics which can replace a branded product. With processes a well guarded secret,
a biologic brand does not suffer the fate of cheap generic competition the way chemical-based drugs do when they reach the patent cliff. This gives Big pharmas first mover advantage with a captive market. Thus with biologic drugs, the problems of patent cliff no longer matters.
This is the underlying reason Big pharmas have focused on a paradigm shift to biologics in the past two decades.
The problem with biologics:
But if the paradigm shift to biologics and buying up biotech companies is Big pharmas' reaction to counter the looming tectonic patent cliff, it doesn't come problem-free.
Gene therapy is one of the new medical advances that is the thrust of biologics. We can look at traditional chemical-based medicine as treating immune systems at a general approach whereas gene therapy is a precision-driven technology aimed at specific cells of the body. CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), is the most popular gene editing biotechnology of the time. In simple terms, CRISPR is editing the genomes in a way like a html coder edit some software codes by deleting or inserting some parts. CRISPR is still in its nascent stage for applications. The science has to deal with unresolved ethical issues. The technology often silences and activates genes it isn’t meant to, leading to adverse effects such as cancer.
The mRNA Covid-19 vaccines have often been wrongly accused as gene therapy. It is not. While the technology of mRNA vaccines is long well-understood, associated excess risk of serious adverse effects, especially myocarditis and cancer, were also known but not well-studied even up to the time they were rolled out for Covid-19.
Biologics deal with living microorganisms. They need to be cultured which takes time and requires specialty bioreactors. There are issues of contamination, storage and transportation because the micro-organisms are very thermally unstable. Because of its dangerous nature, regulatory requirements are more stringent. Much longer time is needed for testing. Bottom line is, although it is easy to manufacture and scale, it is more costly to develop and satisfy regulatory requirements.
Biologics/biotech cannot be rushed to market under conventional regulatory framework and timeline under which most medicine development currently operates.
It is also difficult to persuade consumers that an unpredictable, highly technical drug is safe and effective without the necessary number of years testing it.
Big pharmas, Big money, solve Big problems:
Step one - buy out the regulators.
Today, the WHO is a discredited, captured institution. Many have wrongly claimed WHO is 80% funded by private money. This is incorrect. According to WHO, in 2019 member states contributed 51% of the funds, UN and inter-government organisations 16%, Private donors contributed 33%. In 2020 Trump pulled US out of WHO for poor handling of the pandemic and unwillingness to hold China accountable. This shocked the organisation as US is a major contributor of some 16%. In the same year, Biden reversed that decision. Of the private donors, Bill Gates via the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and GAVI is the single biggest donor of some 17%. Through his vehicles, GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization) and CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations), Bill Gates plays a formidable role in WHO policy making.
Big pharmas and philanthropy capitalism contribute in monetary terms in opaque ways that do not show up in the financials to avoid displays of conflict of interests. This is done via direct funding dollars in various projects including many in management consultancies in WHO which has been on a non-stop decades of reform efforts to beef up structures, operation, and finance. These reform efforts are well known, often ridiculed internally, and have fatigued staff. By these means, Bill Gates have embedded himself as a power house in global health matters.
Step two - buy out the key players.
To name names may be defamatory. But what is very obvious is the rotating doors and built-in silo networks.
WHO's Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus has had long association with Bill Gates during his years as Minister of Health in Ethopia. Of significance during his tenure was the cover up of 3 cholera outbreaks which were reclassified as acute watery diarrhoea (AWD) for political purposes. Sounds familiar? There is no proof that Gates endorsed Tedross' candidacy for Director General in 2017 but his inputs no doubt mattered.
Jeremy Farrar, founder of CEPI and former director of the Wellcome Trust (both of which are large funders of the WHO), became Chief Scientist of WHO in 2022.
Of the 15 members on the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), 13 came from Wellcome Trust or NGOs and institutions funded by Bill Gates or the Gates Foundation. Wellcome Trust is one of the biggest philanthropic foundations in the world managing USD39b endownment fund. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Wellcome Trust are two outstanding funders of WHO and they are heavily invested in the various Big pharmas whose products they push.
Pharmaceutical veteran Moncef Slaoui who once head GSK's vaccine division, and a director of Moderna, ran Operation Warp Speed.
Robert Peter Kadlec, a physician and career officer in the US Air Force, was Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (Preparedness and Response). His past activities included lobbyist for intelligence and defense contractors, lobbyist for the scandal-ridden biodefense company Emergent Biosolutions, which is also a major player in Operation Warp Speed as well as the manufacturer of the controversial anthrax vaccine BioThrax. Kadlec was architect of the controversial April update to the PREP Act. Per STAT News, Kadlec “personally signs off” on every business agreement made on behalf of HHS for Operation Warp Speed.
Step three - shorten the time to bring a drug to market.
This was achieved with (1) a fast-tracked development under the Pentagon–run Operation Warp Speed, (2) legally authorized by the FDA’s EUA (Emergency Use Authorization), and (3) the WHO's EUL (Emergency Use List).
Operation Warp Speed is a public-private partnership launched to rapidly develop and distribute a Covid-19 vaccine. It is run by military (DOD) and security (HHS) personnel which parceled out US$6b for the Covid vaccines. The reason for military involvement was for its expertise in logistics and supply chain management expertise. The government had no direct contact with Big pharmas. Procurement was via a secretive company ATI (Advanced Technology International) which was later acquired by ANSER (Analytic Services Inc).
These are CIA, military and home security contractors. The reason for this layer of contracting is to avoid regulatory scrutiny and reach of FOIA queries so the public will have no access to any information. It was a de facto military operation under the guise of a medical exigency.
Traditionally, medical products are allowed to be marketed after it has received FDA approval which is a strenuous process. EUA was legislated in 2004 to fast track medical products for release to the market without FDA approval.
The purpose of EUA was to respond to chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiation threats. It was never intended for a national health response. The EUA was in response to the 2001 Anthrax attack in America. Two EUAs were issued in 2008 and 2016 for doxycycline products for post-anthrax exposure, These EUAs are still standing.
Have EUAs been issued for civilians for non chemical, biological, nuclear, or radiation threats? Hell, yes. In 2009, two previously approved flu medications Tamiflu and Relenza, and a new drug, Rapivab, were given EUA for the H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. This expired in 2010.
During the MERS outbreak in 2013/2014, EUAs were issued for 2 diagnostic tests. These EUAs are still active. From 2014 to 2018, the FDA issued 11 EUAs were issued during 2014-2018 for Ebola diagnostic tests. 10 of these EUAs are still active, only one product was subsequently cleared for market. 20 EUAs were issued from 2016-2017 for diagnostic tests for Zika. Only 4 were subsequently allowed on the market, 1 was withdrawn, 1 was discontinued, and 14 EUAs remain active.
Pharmas are provided huge incentives after pandemic to transition products from EUA to FDA approval for general market. So why has there been so few successful transitions? Is it because the additional cost of further research and development to gain FDA approval far outweighs the revenue expected?
Or could it be those products never worked or have very low efficacy, or in fact present heavy risks in the first place? These are issues never raised nor studied.
One of the conditions for EUA is that there must be NO existing medical product that can be used for the pathogen. And
that is the reason why hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had to be high-handedly blocked out by western governments during the Covid-19 pandemic. Other countries simply aped them.
Just like the FDA in US, the WHO has it's own stringent standards for recommending medical products. For the Covid pandemic, the WHO initiated the EUL to facilitate pharmas that want to promote their vaccines for international use. To do so they need to register their product on the EUL. Although the role of WHO in this case is purely advisory, the EUL provides a veneer of product authenticity to the rest of the world.
Step four - legislate to protect Big pharmas.
Vaccine manufacturers bear heavy responsibility for ensuring product safety. The medical negligence history is rife with pharmas getting hit with massive payout for injuries caused. The Prep Act of 2005 was to provide protection to vaccine manufacturers and a few weeks before Operation Warp Speed was announced, the Act was updated.to ensure therapeutic manufacturers “cannot be sued for money damages in court” over injuries caused by medical countermeasures for Covid-19. This of course works in the US jurisdiction. Sales to other jurisdictions are of course covered by contracts, which many have suggested carry a 'no public liability' clause.
Follow the money:
Pfizer made $35 billion, while competitors BioNTech and Moderna raked in $20 billion each in 2021 and 2022. Bill Gates turned his $55 million investment in BioNTech into $550 million.
Moderna had produced zero drugs before the pandemic. By 2020 it was on the verge of financial collapse. But just weeks after the virus’s sequence had been shared by Chinese scientists, Moderna had a promising Covid-19 vaccine using mRNA technology. Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel practically begged everywhere for new capital injection. It was only in May when Morgan Stanley agreed to pump in US$1.34b that Moderna finally was able to start mass production. By end 2021, the company was worth US$135b.
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation with an endownment of US$67b, and Wellcome Trust with US$45b, are 2 of the biggest foundations in the world. Wellcome Trust was started by the founders of GlaxoSmithKline. Both play enormous roles in funding and policy decisions in WHO. Although technically the two are philantropic organisations, in reality they are active philanthropic capitalists. There is deep conflict of interest in the role they play at WHO and the fact they are heavily invested in the pharmaceutical industry.
Temasek invested US$250m in BioNtech during the Covid-19 vaccine development stage. This in no way suggests Temasek has an influence on MOH policies. Similarly many other corporate and investment houses, including Blackrock, are passive investors in pharmaceutical companies.
Dr. Fauci and Dr. Collins, along with other NIH scientists, receive royalties from pharmaceutical companies for the development of drugs and vaccines. It is a known and accepted practice for the roles they play in research and development although a clear case of conflict of interest exists. There have been many unsupported reports they benefitted handsomely. FOIA returns prove nothing as they are heavily redacted.
In his nicely titled book
“Pandemic, Inc. Chasing the Capitalists and Thieves Who Got Rich While We Got Sick”, David McSwane wrote of how Covid-19 became a boon to entrepreneurs to people who have access to essential medical supplies, or even just pretending to, became “an unexpected ticket to riches” early in the pandemic, when fears were high and government money was up for grabs. Of course, there certainly were many business persons with good intentions who chipped in to assist. Here in Singapore we had NMP Calvin Cheng who played a role in helping procure Covid-19 vaccines through his company Ensunus. His company focuses on health, wellness, and pharmaceuticals, and was involved in distributing the vaccines. No doubt, a WEF alumnus in the right place at the right time. Ensunus' contribution was in the logistics and distribution. It certainly was not philantrophy. We just don't know his monetary returns other than the Public Service medal he was awarded for his work. For his good work, Cheng earned the right to condemn non-vaxxers whom he recommended be sent to jail. Was that coming from scientific belief in the efficacy of the vaccine, or vested vested interest? Not to forget the failed 'Trace" fiasco. Did someone milk something out of it?
According to McSwane, in the pandemic, vaccines and related businesses created 500 new millionaires and several new billionaires, like Moderna CEO Stéphane Bancel, BioNTech co-founder Uğur Şahin, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla
Towards a permanent pandemic market:
WHO failed in their May 2024 dateline to pass the Pandemic Treaty. Singapore, together with many members of WHO, participated actively to negotiate and craft the treaty. In the May 2024 vote, Singapore did not support the draft. The proposed treaty has not been killed, only the date has been pushed further.
The stated idea for the WHO pandemic treaty is to prevent the shortcomings experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic from recurring. There are several areas of contention related to national sovereignty, equity, private sector influence, and complex global dynamics. While official state representatives try to find common ground on these critical issues, the WHO faces a growing public distrust. Several countries and 23 states in the US have made their views known - they will not comply even when the treaty is passed.
The One Health agenda of the pandemic treaty betrays the true nature of the globalist objective.
Max Jones, investigative journalist :
"From a business perspective, the One Health agenda would create a cyclical market built on two dominant principles: constant surveillance of pathogens with “pandemic potential,” and R&D on medical countermeasures to these pathogens. This R&D then comes to market through the implementation of regulatory policies for the development and distribution of unapproved, experimental medical products. The recently approved IHR (International Health Regulations) amendments have already cemented these principles into international law. The continued drafting of the WHO CA+ seeks to as well."
Member states will then be legally required to build infrastructure to conduct biosurveillance on entire populations.
Big pharmas with big money solve their big problem of patent cliff that they saw decades ago by taking over the regulatory agency WHO. Globalists and socialists jump on the pandemic tiger for they can see what's on the golden platter -- the mass of proletariats cowed into submission. The sycophants such as media, understand who are the ones paying the piper's bills. They all understand Dr Faucci perfectly when he said :
“It’s been proven that when you make it difficult for people in their lives, they lose their ideological bullshit, and they get vaccinated.”
What will it take for folks to wake up:
In 2019, Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, World Economic Forum and Gates Foundation, carried out a simulation exercise for a devastating coronavirus pandemic. A few months later, Covid-19 broke out.
In March 2021 at the Munich Security Conference, under the auspices of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a panel of 19 experts comprising of officials from US and China, UN, WHO, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and Big Pharmas, simulated a bioattack. This was sponsored by Dustin Muscovitch, co-founder of Facebook. The simulation was based on a secret release of a lab-engineered monkeypox virus that eventually killed 271 million people in a worldwide 19-month pandemic. The simulation timed the bioattack on May 15, 2022. In the same week,
the first international outbreak of monkey pox was reported outside of Africa.
This platform has withdrawn it's subscriber widget. If you like blogs like
this and wish to know whenever there is a new post, click the button to my
FB and follow me there. I usually intro my new blogs there. Thanks.
