A video has surfaced from what appears to be January 2021 of World Bank President David Malpass explaining that Pfizer is “hesitant” to distribute its vaccine in countries which refuse to grant legal indemnity from liability for adverse events. He says:
The immediate problem is indemnification. Pfizer has been hesitant to go into some of the countries because of the liability problems, they don’t have a liability shield. So we work with the countries to try to do that. But I think also some of the other vaccine manufacturers may be able to go into countries because they’re operating through subsidiaries. This is all something that we’re exploring, and our goal, my goal, is to have vaccines available throughout the developing world based on what their countries decide. We’ve got financing available but the countries need to choose systems and then begin buying or receiving the vaccines.
If Pfizer is so confident that its vaccine has been proven safe in rigorous trials, why is it unwilling to take responsibility for any problems? And if it is unwilling to take the risk with its own product, how is that going to persuade the vaccine-hesitant to take the risk themselves? The Pfizer vaccine has been linked with 388,618 adverse events in the UK to date, including 628 deaths. Taiwan has halted its use in teenagers due to concerns about the risk of myocarditis. Yet a cloak of secrecy has been thrown over the approvals process and the company has come under fire for “war profiteering” by making huge profits during the pandemic.
Pharmaceutical companies are profit-driven entities and rules on transparency and liability exist to keep them honest and ensure only safe, effective drugs are provided to the public. It may turn out to be a big mistake to have allowed them to avoid this scrutiny and accountability just because many were desperate for a medical way out of the pandemic.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Anyone who pays £199 pa for a subscription to Nature deserves all they misinformation they get for their money.
Fraud? Sounds more like evil to me
The simply the scientific process statement is very telling. The scientific process is obviously that – regardless of any private opinions of people who do The Science[tm] for a living – work on The Science[tm] needs funding and hence, the sciencers must deliver whatever those who are willing to fund their sciencing want. Only naive people believe sciencing would be an open-ended quest to determine true information about natural phenomena. It’s really about fabricating justifications for political goals those who fund sciencing want to achieve. Preferably with lots of math and tables in them so that laymen both end up suitably impressed and rendered incapable of asking unwelcome question like Is the emperor really clothed?
Yes, giving good slide is essential for masking the truth
The NIH doles out $billions each year in grants to private pharma companies. These same companies give back $millions to NIH scientists as royalties (kickbacks) for inventions these scientists created while at work in NIH labs. Legalised bribery.
The standout message for me is the inefficiency of peer review, whether accidental or deliberate. I have a plan. ALL papers should first appear in preprint and be available for anyone to examine. Then any and all informed analysts can dissect work before it gains the imprimatur of full publication. At present the system only allows post hoc comment, from where the taking down of a paper is far more difficult.
This is such a brilliant idea (I would say that of course) that it will never be adopted.
ISTR a retired editor of “The Lancet” saying that in his (long) experience over 90% of fully peer-reviewed papers eventually proved to be wrong – and a depressing percentage proved to be fraudulent.
In reality, “Peer Review” is no better than allowing students to mark their friends’ exam papers.
The Corruption of science for political purposes. ———We no longer have “Science”. It has morphed into “Official Science”. ——–Scientists working for governments have now become an army of data adjusters providing the excuses for government policy on everything from climate to covid. ———-“Ah yes, science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact” –Mark Twain. —And boy do governments know that and why they seek to convince us all that since all scientists agree then so should you.
$cientists are now down there with Politicians, Lawyers and Estate Agents in the “honest and trustworthy” stakes.