As someone who works in pharma, (some of) the industry isn't maliciously evil, but rather bureaucratically evil. Companies don't develop drug products with the intention of hurting their consumers; that's just bad business. Instead, products are developed with an eye towards maximizing revenue within the confines of FDA's approval and exclusivity practices.
In short, this usually manifests as a combination of regulatory games, liability avoidance, and a preference for chronic treatment. If FDA offers a pathway with lower regulatory overhead, the industry will take it. If a minimally efficacious drug is approved by FDA unexpectedly, the sponsor will happily accept the approval. The emergency authorization has shielded vaccine manufacturers from all liability, so usual concerns about adverse events instead receive minimal attention: the liability that usually exists for unlabeled side effects and contraindications has been removed. Exclusivity also comes with the process here, since there will be no generics for unapproved drugs.
And lastly, chronic treatment. Why would the pharma industry want to kill you, when you can get a booster every year instead?
All COVID vaccines in the US plausibly carry a greater risk than other, existing vaccines, simply because we don't know how to label them to avoid preventable adverse events. There may also be greater risk inherent to the accelerated development of these vaccines, which is one of many unknowns that muddy the picture. The risk-benefit calculus is different for everyone, but if you're under the age of 50, it's likely unwise for you to be vaccinated today. But those who do choose to be vaccinated won't die en masse; that was never a realistic outcome.
The lack of liability is what gets me. If you're confident in your product, why do you need it? Voided liability makes no sense. Limited liability, I could see: People drop dead all the time and greedy vultures will label the cause of death whatever profits themselves most, so sure, SOME protections when someone crashes their bike and the family calls Vaxx Car Craxx. Some sanity barriers pre-emptively put in place to minimalize legal cost to the company. But complete immunity, even if it is traceable and provably related?
If someone shows up to a protest in a hazmat suit with a flamethrower, you don't assume they're just there for purely necessary minimal self-defense. Overprotection is highly suspect. You don't wear a full suit of armor to a carnival, even if it is purely "defensive" armor that will never need to be used. And you don't give Big Pharma blanket protections when merely "proved due diligence" protections would do.
Much like the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy, this one is simply too big to succeed.
There's no way you'd be able to keep everyone quiet who'd have to be in on the plan. Everyone from unknown researchers to the CEOs would have to be kept quiet. There's just no way someone wouldn't blow the whistle for the book deal money alone.
That's why I doubt these apocalyptic predictions. I haven't seen any evidence that would lead to a mass culling, and if that really were the case, people would already be testifying about it and the elites would definitely not get away with it. A stolen election is nothing compared to the idea of 50% of the US population being wiped out from mere injections.
It wasn’t an inside job as in they planned it, we already know what happened is that they knew about it ahead of time, but let it happen because they needed a pretense to invade Iraq.
No, it's a much more boring dystopia than that.
As someone who works in pharma, (some of) the industry isn't maliciously evil, but rather bureaucratically evil. Companies don't develop drug products with the intention of hurting their consumers; that's just bad business. Instead, products are developed with an eye towards maximizing revenue within the confines of FDA's approval and exclusivity practices.
In short, this usually manifests as a combination of regulatory games, liability avoidance, and a preference for chronic treatment. If FDA offers a pathway with lower regulatory overhead, the industry will take it. If a minimally efficacious drug is approved by FDA unexpectedly, the sponsor will happily accept the approval. The emergency authorization has shielded vaccine manufacturers from all liability, so usual concerns about adverse events instead receive minimal attention: the liability that usually exists for unlabeled side effects and contraindications has been removed. Exclusivity also comes with the process here, since there will be no generics for unapproved drugs.
And lastly, chronic treatment. Why would the pharma industry want to kill you, when you can get a booster every year instead?
All COVID vaccines in the US plausibly carry a greater risk than other, existing vaccines, simply because we don't know how to label them to avoid preventable adverse events. There may also be greater risk inherent to the accelerated development of these vaccines, which is one of many unknowns that muddy the picture. The risk-benefit calculus is different for everyone, but if you're under the age of 50, it's likely unwise for you to be vaccinated today. But those who do choose to be vaccinated won't die en masse; that was never a realistic outcome.
The lack of liability is what gets me. If you're confident in your product, why do you need it? Voided liability makes no sense. Limited liability, I could see: People drop dead all the time and greedy vultures will label the cause of death whatever profits themselves most, so sure, SOME protections when someone crashes their bike and the family calls Vaxx Car Craxx. Some sanity barriers pre-emptively put in place to minimalize legal cost to the company. But complete immunity, even if it is traceable and provably related?
If someone shows up to a protest in a hazmat suit with a flamethrower, you don't assume they're just there for purely necessary minimal self-defense. Overprotection is highly suspect. You don't wear a full suit of armor to a carnival, even if it is purely "defensive" armor that will never need to be used. And you don't give Big Pharma blanket protections when merely "proved due diligence" protections would do.
Atm I think the damage inflicted by these vaccines is just because of incompetence, rather than actual willful intended evil meant to genocide.
Much like the "9/11 was an inside job" conspiracy, this one is simply too big to succeed.
There's no way you'd be able to keep everyone quiet who'd have to be in on the plan. Everyone from unknown researchers to the CEOs would have to be kept quiet. There's just no way someone wouldn't blow the whistle for the book deal money alone.
That's why I doubt these apocalyptic predictions. I haven't seen any evidence that would lead to a mass culling, and if that really were the case, people would already be testifying about it and the elites would definitely not get away with it. A stolen election is nothing compared to the idea of 50% of the US population being wiped out from mere injections.
Hell you probably couldn't keep Fauci from blowing the whistle just so he could be on CNN again.
It wasn’t an inside job as in they planned it, we already know what happened is that they knew about it ahead of time, but let it happen because they needed a pretense to invade Iraq.