by Dr. Joseph Mercola, Mercola:
STORY AT-A-GLANCE
- Many have reflected on the fact that Big Pharma has a perverse incentive to promote ill health, as its financial bottom line depends on it. But few understand just how elaborate its efforts to that end are
- American podcaster and former professor of evolutionary biology Bret Weinstein describes the pharmaceutical industry as an intellectual property racket. Big Pharma patents molecules, compounds and technologies, and then looks for diseases against which their patents can be applied
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
- Pharma is engaged in a continuous effort to portray its intellectual properties as more useful and safer than they are, and to persuade the medical establishment, journals, medical societies, hospitals and government to direct people toward drugs they wouldn’t otherwise be taking. So, when COVID-19 happened, the industry was more than prepared to take advantage of it
- The introduction of the mRNA platform technology was central to the entire COVID response. The technology has a lethal flaw that would prevent it from getting to the market under normal circumstances. The COVID pandemic allowed Pharma to bypass this obstacle and deploy this incredibly lucrative technology
- By way of amendments to the International Health Regulations and the pandemic treaty, the World Health Organization seeks to achieve global dominion and total control of the masses under the guise of public health
The video above features an interview with American podcaster and former professor of evolutionary biology Bret Weinstein by Tucker Carlson.1 Originally aired January 5, 2024, in it they discuss the COVID-19 pandemic, “the game of Big Pharma,” the catastrophic effects of the mRNA shots, and the World Health Organization’s plan for humanity going forward. It’s an excellent interview you won’t want to miss.
The Big Pharma Racket Explained
Weinstein begins by addressing what he refers to “the game of Big Pharma.” He believed himself to be somewhat of an expert on the drug industry, but during the last four years, he found himself being “schooled,” and many facets of the industry were not at all what he’d imagined.
Of course, Big Pharma has a “perverse incentive” to promote ill health as its financial bottom line depends on it. They make no money from healthy people.
“But what I think most of us did not realize is how elaborate its bag of tricks is,” he says, “and what the nature of that bag of tricks is. To describe it, I would say Pharma is an intellectual property racket …
Essentially, Pharma owns various things — it owns molecules, compounds, it owns technologies, and what it’s looking for is a disease to which these things plausibly apply.”
Once a disease has been identified against which one of Pharma’s intellectual properties can be used, the industry’s profits rise to the extent that:
- The disease is widespread
- The disease is serious
- Competing drugs are deemed unsafe or ineffective
- Government will mandate the drug
- The medical establishment will declare it the standard of care
“You’ve just described pandemic response!” Carlson says. And, indeed, analyzing the pandemic response is what allowed Weinstein to identify these tricks.
Pharma, he says, is engaged in a continuous effort to portray its intellectual properties as more useful and safer than they are, and to persuade the medical establishment, journals, medical societies, hospitals and government to “direct people toward drugs they wouldn’t otherwise be taking. That’s what the racket is.”
It’s important to understand what the Pharma racket is, and how it works, because long before COVID, Pharma was “expert at figuring out how to portray a disease as more widespread and more dangerous than it was,” and it was “excellent at portraying a compound as more efficacious than it is.”
So, when COVID-19 happened, the industry was more than prepared to take advantage of it. COVID was “the biggest pharmacological cash cow conceivable,” Weinstein notes.
A Fatal Flaw
The immediate needs of the crisis allowed Pharma to do what otherwise would have been impossible, and that is to roll out mRNA technology at “warp speed” under the pretense that it was the latest and greatest vaccine technology. Gene therapies must undergo far more stringent safety and efficacy testing, all of which were bypassed in this case.
Weinstein suspects the mRNA technology “would never have gotten through even the most cursory safety tests” under normal circumstances, as it has a “terrible safety flaw.”
The lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) are not targeted, so they can and are taken up by any cell they encounter. This wouldn’t be so bad if the injection actually stayed in the injection site, as promised, but it doesn’t.
This was, of course, entirely predictable. Just about any compound injected will leak from the injection site and end up circulating through your body. The risk of systemic effects was further augmented by the fact that health authorities advised AGAINST aspiration of the needle prior to injection.
Aspiration involves pulling back on the plunger to make sure there’s no blood. If there’s blood, you’ve landed in a blood vessel, which means you’re injecting straight into the blood stream and not into the deltoid tissue, which would help minimize the mRNA’s spread through your body.
As explained by Weinstein, the danger of the mRNA technology has to do with how immunity naturally develops.
A viral infection occurs when a virus enters into a cell and tricks it into making copies of the virus. These copies enter into and infect adjacent cells, and many also spread to other people through coughing and sneezing. When your cells produce an antigen (a foreign protein) that your immune system cannot recognize, your immune system assumes that cell is virally infected and sets out to destroy it.
The problem with the mRNA transfection technology is that it tricks cells haphazardly throughout your body to produce a foreign protein, which your immune system recognizes as an infection in progress.
Your immune system therefore starts to destroy the affected cells, and when those cells are in your heart, brain or other internal organs, the result can be life threatening. Aside from lethal heart problems, we’re also seeing a dramatic uptick in extremely rapidly progressing cancers.
“To go back to the original story, Pharma had a potentially tremendously lucrative property that it couldn’t bring to market because a safety test would have revealed this unsolvable problem at its heart,” Weinstein says.
“My hypothesis is that it recognized that the thing that would bypass that obstacle was an emergency that caused the public to demand a remedy … that would cause the government to streamline the safety testing process so that it wouldn’t spot these things.
And indeed … the safety testing was radically truncated so that long-term harms were impossible to detect. So, the hypothesis in question is, Pharma used an emergency to bypass an obstacle to bring an incredibly lucrative technology — to normalize it in the public and the regulatory apparatus — to sneak it by the things that would ordinarily prevent a dangerous technology like this one from being widely deployed.”
The Plot to Introduce Risky Tech Was Central to the COVID Response
In a supplementary commentary about and to this interview, Jeffrey A. Tucker, founder of the Brownstone Institute, writes:2
“The bigger picture, the ominous reality, was slow to dawn on me, namely that the mRNA platform technology … was central to the entire COVID response. Without understanding that, we miss the forest for the trees. It was the driving motivation for the initiation of lockdowns … and their absurd prolongation …
When you consider the scale of the damage to the whole society and the entire world, all for purposes of patent piracy and fast-tracking a technological deployment, one almost cannot imagine that any government could be so captured and corrupt. It seems to stretch the bounds of plausibility and yet here we are.
Knowing all of this helps frame up some of the mysteries of the time, such as the wild and aggressive censorship. To manage a caper on this scale required the creation of the appearance of consensus. The point was to prepare the way for the vaccine rollout, which everyone was supposed to regard as their salvation from lockdowns, masks, and closures …
There is a reason we haven’t heart any high-profile apologies or admissions of wrongdoing. The reason is that there was never a purpose to do the right thing. It was an industrial takeover from the beginning, a perfect corporatist scheme for gaining a major advantage in the wars for pharmaceuticals and their future.”
Tens of Millions Have Likely Been Killed Already
Weinstein cites research3 by Joseph Fraiman et. al., in which they reanalyzed Pfizer’s own trial data, showing there was a 1 in 800 risk of a serious adverse event. This risk was cleverly disguised by giving the placebo group the real mRNA shot just one month into the trial.
This was not a risk of 1 in 800 people, but 1 in 800 doses, and people got two doses to start. Research presented at a recent conference in Romania suggests some 17 million people have died as a result of the shots so far. Yet these shots are still recommended for children as young as 6 months, and in the absence of any kind of emergency.
And, as noted by Weinstein, while booster uptake is now in the single digits percentage-wise, we are not seeing a clear majority acknowledging that the mass vaccination campaign was a mistake to begin with. It’s as though most people simply don’t want to think about the damage that has been done. They don’t want to acknowledge that they were fooled by a sophisticated propaganda machine.
But we’re still injecting these shots into children, and that means we have a moral obligation to acknowledge the uncomfortable truth that the shots are dangerous and must be stopped.
Free Speech Is a Matter of Life and Death
As noted by Weinstein, a relatively small number of alternative media voices were fortunately able to educate enough people about the harms, such that booster uptake has now dropped off the proverbial cliff. The problem we now face is that the WHO, in its amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHRs) and the international pandemic treaty, is seeking to gain control over all media worldwide.
