Tag: BioNTech

The Left’s Covid Failure

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Mainly, though, this has been a historic failure from the Left, which will have disastrous consequences. Any form of popular dissent is likely to be hegemonized once again by the (extreme) Right, poleaxing any chance the Left has of winning round the voters it needs to overturn Right-wing hegemony. Meanwhile, the Left holds on to a technocracy of experts severely undermined by what is proving to be a catastrophic handling of the pandemic in terms of social progressivism. As any kind of viable electable Left fades into the past, the discussion and dissent at the heart of any true democratic process is likely to fade with it.

The Left’s Covid Failure

Pfizer planning to vaccinate Brazil city in study + Study finds no difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Pfizer announced a plan to fully vaccinate an entire Brazilian city to study the long-term effects and safety of its COVID-19 vaccine in a “real-life scenario.”

Pfizer planning to vaccinate Brazil city in study

Related:

Study finds no difference in viral loads between vaccinated and unvaccinated

The work was funded by the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub; Healthy Yolo Together; UC San Francisco and UC Davis.

🤔 Interesting:

The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is an organization established and owned by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan with an investment of 99 percent of the couple’s wealth from their Facebook shares over their lifetime.

Wikipedia

They’re lying about Pfizer—The road to Aduhelm: What one ex-FDA adviser called ‘probably the worst drug approval decision in recent US history’ for an Alzheimer’s treatment

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

The road to Aduhelm: What one ex-FDA adviser called ‘probably the worst drug approval decision in recent US history’ for an Alzheimer’s treatment

Worse yet, according to the critics, the FDA gave Aduhelm accelerated approval in June, another possibility that had not been raised before the committee. (In notable contrast, the FDA did not act in an accelerated fashion when it finally approved the Pfizer/BionTech vaccine for Covid-19 in August.)**

…

Carome believes the shift at the FDA began in earnest in 1992, when the funding stream for the government agency changed. Under an act of Congress that year, the pharmaceutical industry paid “user fees” to support its regulators. The idea was that since the companies would benefit from the FDA’s decisions, they should cover the costs. User fees now pay for roughly 45% of the FDA’s budget.

“The politicians like user fees, because that means they don’t have to allocate taxpayer money,” Carome said, “but what this has done is encourage the agency to become a partner with industry. This has led to regulatory capture of the agency, which is now looking at best interests of the company rather than the best interests of public health.”

**They’re lying about this!? The FDA fast tracked Pfizer’s jab AND accelerated it’s review! The advisory committee didn’t even hold another meeting about the updated data from clinical trials! How is that not different?!

Pfizer, BioNTech’s coronavirus vaccine candidates get FDA’s ‘fast track’ status

FDA, under pressure, plans ‘sprint’ to accelerate review of Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine for full approval

FDA Reassigns Staff to Accelerate Full Approval for Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine

Covid-19: FDA set to grant full approval to Pfizer vaccine without public discussion of data

Why Is the Gates Foundation Funding the UK’s Medicines Regulator?

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Why Is the Gates Foundation Funding the UK’s Medicines Regulator?

“Safety in a world of user fees” is of paramount concern, concluded Lexchin. That was was back in 2017. Four years on, we are in the biggest health crisis of our lifetimes and the tasks performed by medicines regulators are more important than ever. New experimental vaccines and therapeutic treatments are rolling off the line in record time. But they’re also being authorised in record time — in some cases despite scant evidence of benefits (e.g., Remdesivir). And they’re earning record profits for their manufacturers. At the same time, promising repurposed off-patent medicines that do not offer lucrative financial returns are largely being ignored or are even being demonised by our medicines regulators.