I don't think it is ironic. I understand the argument that it can be seen as blackmail and could cause long term infringements on freedom but the situation is so dire and I believe that in r reality scepticism has to be a wide church - if it was wider, we wouldn't be in such a minority. I am absolutely furious about lockdown, and have been since the beginning; I think the last 11 months have been preposterous and most of the population thick beyond belief. But we're not all the same, we all have a different breaking point, and I wouldn't want to put people off scepticism by being purist. I have always been pro vaccination in principle and I am neutral on the Covid one. Personally I won't bother having it because I'm not a hysterical hyperchondriac. I would also not allow my child to have it were that to be suggested. But if the terrified want to have it and would stop screaming for more lockdown, or if it would force the hand of the teaching unions to stop them being scaremongering lying bastards, then I support it. I am still hugely sceptical.
The Janssen vaccine and the Oxford vaccine are developed and sold on a not-for-profit basis.
Just because some good people in the supply chain are not profiting does not mean that those that fund them and pull their strings are not profiting.
No, not the supply chain, from the top.For Janssen, that would be the shareholders of Johnson and Johnson, who are not making a profit:
https://www.janssen.com/uk/road-vaccine
The Company plans to begin production at risk imminently and is committed to bringing an affordable vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use, should the vaccine candidate prove effective with a good safety profile.
The Janssen vaccine and the Oxford vaccine are developed and sold on a not-for-profit basis.
Just because some good people in the supply chain are not profiting does not mean that those that fund them and pull their strings are not profiting.
Look, of course if a scientist is working on a not-for-profit vaccine, he has to eat so he has to make wages,and if he visits a manufacturer, and takes a taxi from the station, like we would,the taxi driver needs his wages. Of course the whole enterprise of developing a drugs, mean taxi drivers and hoteliers make money, but that's not what we mean here, we mean corporate profits for shareholders/pension firms.
The Janssen vaccine and the Oxford vaccine are developed and sold on a not-for-profit basis.
Just because some good people in the supply chain are not profiting does not mean that those that fund them and pull their strings are not profiting.
Look, of course if a scientist is working on a not-for-profit vaccine, he has to eat so he has to make wages,and if he visits a manufacturer, and takes a taxi from the station, like we would,the taxi driver needs his wages. Of course the whole enterprise of developing a drugs, mean taxi drivers and hoteliers make money, but that's not what we mean here, we mean corporate profits for shareholders/pension firms.
The motivation behind all businesses is to make a profit.
Without this fundamental drive there wouldn't be the pharm industry that is striving to address this new huge market. Yes, there will be profit, but the consumers value the product and pay for it.
The Janssen vaccine and the Oxford vaccine are developed and sold on a not-for-profit basis.
Just because some good people in the supply chain are not profiting does not mean that those that fund them and pull their strings are not profiting.
No, not the supply chain, from the top. For Janssen, that would be the shareholders of Johnson and Johnson, who are not making a profit:
https://www.janssen.com/uk/road-vaccine
The Company plans to begin production at risk imminently and is committed to bringing an affordable vaccine to the public on a not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use, should the vaccine candidate prove effective with a good safety profile.
I highlight the words "not-for-profit basis for emergency pandemic use." Ever heard of "loss leaders"? Once regular vaccines are established, this will be a nice little earner for big pharma companies.
When I said "those that fund them and pull their strings are not profiting", I had in mind, among others, Mr BiG (a.k.a. Bill Gates). Over the last five years, Mr BiG's foundation has not funded Janssen, but in 2013 Mr BiG funded them to the tune of $32m. Johnson and Johnson, who own Janssen, are also in league with Mr BiG. I have not unravelled that one yet. However, the intention of Mr BiG is to get everyone on board with regular vaccinations, IDs and so on. So Mr BiG pulls many strings to achieve his own agenda.
Look, of course if a scientist is working on a not-for-profit vaccine, he has to eat so he has to make wages,and if he visits a manufacturer, and takes a taxi from the station, like we would,the taxi driver needs his wages. Of course the whole enterprise of developing a drugs, mean taxi drivers and hoteliers make money, but that's not what we mean here, we mean corporate profits for shareholders/pension firms.
I never questioned people "in the supply chain" earning their normal wage and claiming expenses. I said:
One of the saddest aspects of this farce is that there are many kind people working hard to benefit others who have been duped and betrayed by those 'above' them.
By which I meant that many kind people were putting in extra hard work and not seeking anything extra for themselves.
