It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
The claim was made that the pharmaceuticals are pushing mandatory vaccines and continual boosters for profit. You claimed that they were not because such a scheme would have to actively involve "10,000s of people," and then that a drug that was ineffective was not profitable to the pharmaceutical making it. You then claimed that if there was any serious money to be made, it was being made by those who opposed the vaccine.
That is what I responded to. So far you have not made any serious arguments to support your position. I counterclaimed that those "10,000s of people" need not be involved because the CEOs set the agenda for their company and only a select few companies are involved.
I have been a CEO and owner of a small C-Corp. No one... and I mean NO ONE... told me what direction my company was going to take. I may have listened to others' opinions, but the decisions were mine and mine alone.
My concern is that the target protein, the spike protein on the virus, seems to be responsible in and of itself for the health issues reported with both the virus and to a lesser extent, the vaccine. That has nothing to do with the mRNA process. The same protein could be included in a standard injection and cause the exact same issues.
There seems to be a problem with the innate immune system developing antibodies to this virus.
Therefore, such a problem must exist with this virus, since the cytokine storm is one of the major side effects. The next most common is cardiac inflammation, which differs from the after-effect of pneumonia only in location.
My Daddy used to say to me: If you want to be treated like an adult, act like an adult. If you want to be treated like a child, act like a child.
TheRedneck
originally posted by: underpass61
Question:
Which side of the dissonance debate has an enormous financial stake in their narrative, and wouldn't they be extremely interested in influencing you to choose your "best course of action"?
What does the other side have to gain?
originally posted by: Xtrozero
Well one side is not just 1 or 2 big pharma, its companies all over the world doing the same thing with mRNA, so unless they are all working together, 10,000s of people working hard to make the vaccines etc etc then the vaccines are not made to get you.
On the other hand you have individuals out to make money with their videos, so where is the incentive to make money? Then you just have government trying to use the pandemic as a control tool and so why should people trust the vaccine if they can't trust the Goverment?
I agreed they are for profit, but I don't think they need to banned together to make that happen
Well then we were addressing two different things then.
My point was even if big Pharma wants to make huge profits it doesn't also mean the vaccines do not work, or they are dangerous.
The 10,000 people would be the creators working their whole lives to make good drugs, and good drugs are good for business too.
So I can give a rats ass if big Pharma wants profits, is that any different than the last 100 years? The change has been the Goverment mandating and controlling our lives while punishing all those who do not comply, THAT IS UNAMERICAN and will bite them in the ass like it typically does in the end.
I want the pharmaceuticals to stop using government/media to assist them in making money off pushing drugs people may not need.
They got us the vaccines in minimal time, so what else do you want?
And it has been minimal unless you can provide real data otherwise.
Am I really acting like a child?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I will now call you what you just proved yourself to be: Karen. You can take your faked offense and do whatever you want with it... I don't need your attitude.
TheRedneck
We are 99% in agreement
originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Xtrozero
We are 99% in agreement
I have to point out the title of this thread:
"I cannot believe MY cognitive dissonance!"
No, sir, we are not in "99% agreement." I.m sure you want us to be in "99% agreement" because that would justify your narrative. You have been making wild allegations this entire thread, and when called on them, you change the subject so you can be offended.
Good day, sir.
TheRedneck
[The OP's] point is basically the vaccines are bad for you and everyone is trying to hide that fact as they force it on everyone. I'm just saying that big Pharma is going to try and provide the best vaccine they can, and make as much money as they can in the process, you know that whole capitalism thing. There is no need for these companies to get united in any way. They are united with a F up government that is willing to throw down 100s of billions.
Getting the vaccine so quickly was a good thing for the old and high risk... end of story...
originally posted by: TheRedneck
In this statement, my only disagreement is that while the pharmaceuticals may be trying to make the best vaccine they can, their primary focus is on selling as many doses of their vaccine as they can. I will agree that the government actions (waiving normal red tape, pre-purchasing large quantities of the vaccines even before final testing, and public pressure to get the vaccine) are the reason the pharmaceuticals are able to sell so much, but I also believe the pharmaceuticals are providing illegal kickbacks. Politicians, in my experience, do not work for free.
You claim that no collusion between companies is needed; that may be true, but it does not then follow that no such collusion exists.
I would have a hard time disagreeing with that. However, things change. We have some pretty effective treatment options today which I consider much safer than the vaccines. Options, however, are always a good thing; if someone wishes the vaccine, they should be able to get it. They should also be able to get monoclonal antibodies, Ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, or any other treatment they decide on with their physician's approval.
It becomes difficult when you start to deal with foreign companies.
originally posted by: ketsuko
I think Pfizer saw an opportunity. They saw a situation where governments were taking unprecedented amounts of control and using it freely and people were allowing. Moderna is likely in the same camp. If you can become the de-facto go-to product a government uses in the scenario, then you make gobs of money. In a post-free market world, this is what we're looking at - public/private partnership basically. Or you might say we're looking at something like the corporatacracy of the Alien universe where the governments ostensibly have control, but the corps move more power behind the scenes and across borders. The business is the state; the state is the business.
Why do you think you can see countries backing away from mandating vaccines and boosters, etc., but the US stays dug in? Part of it is that our government has less grip on control than others. Part of it is entrenched money interests.
You can't claim that the vaccines are really all that useful to people in all demographics across the board. They just aren't. For many, relying on our bodies is enough and actually safer than taking the vaccines which do have some stiff side effects. Like it or not, the risk of cardio-vascular side effects does outweigh the risk of serious illness once you get below a certain age, especially for men. If we can help it, our young son *will not* be vaccinated for a good long time despite the fact that both of us have been.
And when they are cutting the time between boosters more and more: yearly, every six months, whoops - 5 months ... And now telling you that the vaccine doesn't keep you from getting sick, just makes you less sick, but it still can give you serious cardiac complications (nevermind that; you won't go the hospital with pneumonia), why would you keep rolling up your sleeve for it?
originally posted by: TheRedneck
I don't think Pfizer has any problem dealing with a "foreign company."
TheRedneck
Why do you think you can see countries backing away from mandating vaccines and boosters, etc., but the US stays dug in? Part of it is that our government has less grip on control than others. Part of it is entrenched money interests.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Pfizer may not be driving the bus, but they are certainly telling the driver where the bus needs to go.
This is not a US issue alone. This is a global issue, spanning hundreds of governments and power organizations like the UN. That's a lot of buses all going to the same terminal. Coincidence?
TheRedneck
That is mainly due to a lemmings mentality that we have seen with the Pandemic.
originally posted by: TheRedneck
Why else would a potential politician spend a million dollars or more to win a seat that pays $174,000 a year? That would be like spending $100,000 to get a job making $17,300 a year... a new house just to have a poverty level job? That's ludicrous! But politicians do it all the time because that poverty level job comes with some serious upper level perks. The result is that big companies make out like bandits, politicians make out like bandits, lobbyists make damn good coin, and the rest of us are just struggling to get by.
As I have said, there's plenty of blame to go around.
TheRedneck
The Clintons broke the code too, so instead of getting cash where they almost got caught they just give 15 min speeches and get paid 250k per or more, not to mention the whole charity thing that ends up being pay to play for even foreign Governments.