More Lies and Betrayals

 

Remember when the mainstream media kept track of all of Pres. Trump’s “lies”? Every day the list grew longer, eventually to monumental proportions. It’s too bad the media isn’t interested in the really juicy stuff, such as the lies that the Biden Administration is telling about the COVID vaccines and its betrayal of Big Pharma.

It turns out that the Biden administration and 100 other countries are prepared to rip off the COVID vaccine producers based on a list of lies. After the incredible efforts that Pfizer and Moderna made to produce the vaccines, through Operation Warp Speed, they are now being told they need to give up their intellectual property and patents to save the world.

So what is the government’s “reasoning” for these demands? Here are some of their explanations and the supporting lies that they are espousing:

“Waiving” the patents will allow low-income countries to produce the vaccine more quickly. This is untrue for multiple reasons. First, just “negotiating” the arrangements for producing the vaccine in third-world countries could take months or years. In addition, “waiving” is a misnomer; since they plan on the waiver lasting several years, the patents might as well be eliminated. Many of these countries don’t have the expertise to create labs to develop the vaccines, nor do they have access to raw materials; they might need years to come up to speed. Finally, US Trade Ambassador Katherine Tai made the following statement:

‘This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures,’ she wrote in a statement. ‘The administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.’

She said the US would participate in negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO), but that this could take some time to resolve. (Italics are mine.)

Again, waiving the patents will do nothing to speed up production. Dozens of licensing agreements to produce the vaccine have already been negotiated with other manufacturers in low-income countries.

The true reasons for stealing Pharma intellectual property have become patently obvious. First, the vaccines were developed under President Trump, and although Biden has made several efforts to take credit for them, he has been unsuccessful; this is one more effort to marginalize Pres. Trump. Second, the vaccine production has created some positive press for the pharmaceutical industry; after years of being characterized as greedy and lacking compassion, this improvement in their reputations would be a step “backward” to their critics.

The intentions of the waiver advocates are obvious. Betrayal of Big Pharma will be seen as a victory for the little people. As the WSJ said:

The Administration’s WTO waiver will break patents and legal protections for vaccine makers. Investors will be less likely to fund new drug research if they think their own government will betray them under political pressure. Chalk up another damaging victory for the Congressional left.

To be sure, the vaccine producers made a great deal of money.  And of course, making a profit on the “backs of millions of people” is probably considered criminal by some critics:

‘It is absolutely wrong for drug companies like Pfizer and Moderna to profiteer, and for their executives to make egregious personal fortunes, off of Covid-19 vaccines that have been so heavily subsidized and supported by American taxpayers,’ said Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for Accountable.US, a progressive watchdog and patient advocacy group.

Pfizer responded to these comments:

In a statement last month, Pfizer said its Covid-19 vaccine development and manufacturing costs ‘have been entirely self-funded, with billions of dollars already invested at risk.’

‘The company will continue bearing all the costs of development and manufacturing in an effort to help find a solution to this pandemic as fast as possible,’ Pfizer said at the time.

No good deed goes unpunished.

Published in Healthcare
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 53 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Susan Quinn:

    Pfizer responded to these comments:

    In a statement last month, Pfizer said its Covid-19 vaccine development and manufacturing costs ‘have been entirely self-funded, with billions of dollars already invested at risk.’

    ‘The company will continue bearing all the costs of development and manufacturing in an effort to help find a solution to this pandemic as fast as possible,’ Pfizer said at the time.

    No good deed goes unpunished.

    Since my opinion about the wisdom and judgment of this administration is effectively unprintable, given both my natural civility and the language restrictions imposed by this forum, I’ll say simply that I expect nothing from this administration other than that it will get essentially everything completely wrong — and usually in the worst possible way. I expect not to be disappointed (which is itself a disappointment, but one I expect).

    As for Pfizer…

    I’m pro-pharma. I’ve long defended drug companies from government, and will continue to do so.

    But there’s a certain degree of schadenfreude in the thought of Pfizer losing a fortune on this, given the way that company shamelessly politicized the release of its vaccine to support the election of an administration that is now eager to stab them in the back. I’ll keep defending pharma, but Pfizer is… well, something unprintable.

     

    • #1
  2. Freeven Member
    Freeven
    @Freeven

    From what I understand, pre-Covid19, American pharma companies had pretty much stopped making vaccines because they took huge loses on every one. I remember reading about this years ago and thinking that it probably wasn’t a good thing that we are reliant on other countries to supply us with vaccines, not to mention our inability to monitor quality control. It’s hugely expensive to develop and test a new med, and most of them never make it to market. When the government is actively undercutting their profits with price control attempts, and then follows up by “waiving” on their behalf the patents on these wonder drugs, it’s not surprising that Big Pharma responds by cynically looking after their bottom lines in all the ways Big Pharma is criticized for.

    • #2
  3. Hang On Member
    Hang On
    @HangOn

    They should stick a few extra billion dollars in the infrastructure bill instead of some of the other stupid stuff and pay for a government license that can then be given away. 

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    But there’s a certain degree of schadenfreude in the thought of Pfizer losing a fortune on this, given the way that company shamelessly politicized the release of its vaccine to support the election of an administration that is now eager to stab them in the back.

    I must have missed that–Pfizer supporting Biden’s election. Many companies are going to be stabbed in the back when the Biden administration finishes with them.

    • #4
  5. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    Second, the two arguments (1) poor countries are not capable of utilizing the technology, and (2) poor countries already are licensing the patents, is a total contradiction.   You can’t say it is meaningless to waive patents and yet it will destroy Big Pharma.

    Third, I bet the patents are based on research paid for by me proven out by vaccines paid for by me.   I am OK with giving technology paid for by me and tested by me to others.  As a taxpayer, I pay for research for the betterment of humanity, not the enrichment of some well-connected oligarch.

    Fourth, It is Big Pharma that lies and betrays the rest of us.  Oligarchs boost profits by destroying competition.   They are un-American and we should break them up. 

    • #5
  6. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    There is a reason commie countries develop viruses and capitalistic countries develop the cures.

    • #6
  7. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Hang On (View Comment):

    They should stick a few extra billion dollars in the infrastructure bill instead of some of the other stupid stuff and pay for a government license that can then be given away.

    But that would solve the problem and it would limit government power. The point of this is to make corporations utterly subservient to the government.

    I am not nearly as pro-pharma as Mr. Racette. The cronyism by some of these companies is epic. I honestly wouldn’t mind the government punishing companies for raising the prices of epinephrine and insulin. But instead the Biden administration is choosing to go after corporations for this so that corporations need to ask the government for everything in order to exist. This is after Trump’s warp speed showed that reducing dumb regulations can inspire research and manufacturing to support the common good.

    I should note that for all Trump’s petty tweets about this or that woke corporation, this is a much bigger overstep of government power over corporations than anything Trump even approached.

    • #7
  8. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    (1) poor countries are not capable of utilizing the technology, and (2) poor countries already are licensing the patents, is a total contradiction.   You can’t say it is meaningless to waive patents and yet it will destroy Big Pharma.

    There is a difference between licenses to manufacture the vaccine and making the vaccine from scratch. Also I didn’t say it would destroy Big Pharma. They are entitled to make a profit, given the risks they took. On the rest of your points I’ll take a pass.

    • #8
  9. Boney Cole Member
    Boney Cole
    @BoneyCole

    I would like to read the investigative journalism that revealed the story behind the vaccine announcement.  Surely, someone on the inside, or very near the inside, would be willing to talk.  My understanding is that Pfizer delayed the vaccine announcement until after the election so that Trump could not use that info in his campaign, but I have not seen a definitive or detailed treatment in the press.  Can someone refer me to such an article? 

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Boney Cole (View Comment):

    I would like to read the investigative journalism that revealed the story behind the vaccine announcement. Surely, someone on the inside, or very near the inside, would be willing to talk. My understanding is that Pfizer delayed the vaccine announcement until after the election so that Trump could not use that info in his campaign, but I have not seen a definitive or detailed treatment in the press. Can someone refer me to such an article?

    @boneycole, there are contradictory reports:

    CEO of Pfizer says timing of the vaccine announcement had nothing to do with politics (msn.com)

    Trump rails against ‘medical deep state’ after Pfizer vaccine news comes after Election Day (msn.com)

     

    • #10
  11. W Bob Member
    W Bob
    @WBob

    Sounds like a taking of private property for public use, which would require just compensation. But what do I know?

    • #11
  12. Henry Racette Contributor
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Boney Cole (View Comment):

    I would like to read the investigative journalism that revealed the story behind the vaccine announcement. Surely, someone on the inside, or very near the inside, would be willing to talk. My understanding is that Pfizer delayed the vaccine announcement until after the election so that Trump could not use that info in his campaign, but I have not seen a definitive or detailed treatment in the press. Can someone refer me to such an article?

    @ boneycole, there are contradictory reports:

    CEO of Pfizer says timing of the vaccine announcement had nothing to do with politics (msn.com)

    Trump rails against ‘medical deep state’ after Pfizer vaccine news comes after Election Day (msn.com)

     

    Whether or not it had anything to do with politics (though I’m pretty sure it did), and whether or not the Pfizer CEO is being truthful (I’m pretty sure he isn’t), Pfizer not only delayed announcing the vaccine (by delaying verifying the results of the trials) until right after the election, but then — if I remember correctly — spoke to the Biden camp, rather than the current President, so that it was Biden’s people who were able to make the announcement of the first working vaccine.

    I’ve tried to find references to that online and haven’t been able to do so.

    I do find a lot of explaining of why Pfizer announced preliminary test results when they did. I haven’t found an explanation of why Pfizer stopped the normal test protocol that would have had similar test results released in October, as originally intended. Of course, that would have meant releasing test results before the election — and a huge boost for Trump —  rather than after.

     

    • #12
  13. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Henry Racette (View Comment):
    I do find a lot of explaining of why Pfizer announced preliminary test results when they did. I haven’t found an explanation of why Pfizer stopped the normal test protocol that would have had similar test results released in October, as originally intended. Of course, that would have meant releasing test results before the election — and a huge boost for Trump —  rather than after.

    I understand what you’re saying, Hank. I guess my question for everyone would be, how bad would Pfizer have to be to justify ripping them off? Sort of the old, two wrongs don’t make a right.

    • #13
  14. Boney Cole Member
    Boney Cole
    @BoneyCole

    I did not mean to infer that Pfizer was so bad that they deserved to be ripped off.  I am in favor of them retaining their patent rights.  I would just like to know the truth.  Also, haven’t they been indemnified by the US government against lawsuits concerning the vaccine?  Was there a monetary component to this? I haven’t seen a good article on the details of the  agreement between Pfizer and the U.S.

    • #14
  15. David Foster Member
    David Foster
    @DavidFoster

    Related article at Marginal Revolution.

     

     

    • #15
  16. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s like saying that seatbelts are not necessary because there are treatments available for traumatic injuries.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Second, the two arguments (1) poor countries are not capable of utilizing the technology, and (2) poor countries already are licensing the patents, is a total contradiction.   You can’t say it is meaningless to waive patents and yet it will destroy Big Pharma.

    (2) would be true if the licensing did not also include technological aid.  The waiver of patents will not help poor countries; it will help certain rich countries (cough China cough) at the expense of our industries.  I seem to remember that someone said that the WHO was in the back pocket of China, I can’t recall who that was.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Third, I bet the patents are based on research paid for by me proven out by vaccines paid for by me.   I am OK with giving technology paid for by me and tested by me to others.  As a taxpayer, I pay for research for the betterment of humanity, not the enrichment of some well-connected oligarch.

    First, Operation Warp Speed was mostly government getting out of the way.  The companies bore most of the expense themselves.  By your argument, any company that gets a tax break or subsidy from the government should give all their patents away to our competitors overseas.  Thus, China pirating technology is a good thing, since more people benefit at a lower cost.  The trouble with that is if people in the United States don’t have the opportunity to profit from innovation, they’ll just stop innovating.  And no one benefits.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Fourth, It is Big Pharma that lies and betrays the rest of us.  Oligarchs boost profits by destroying competition.   They are un-American and we should break them up. 

    Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZenica-it seems like there is plenty of competition.

    • #16
  17. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s like saying that seatbelts are not necessary because there are treatments available for traumatic injuries.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Second, the two arguments (1) poor countries are not capable of utilizing the technology, and (2) poor countries already are licensing the patents, is a total contradiction. You can’t say it is meaningless to waive patents and yet it will destroy Big Pharma.

    (2) would be true if the licensing did not also include technological aid. The waiver of patents will not help poor countries; it will help certain rich countries (cough China cough) at the expense of our industries. I seem to remember that someone said that the WHO was in the back pocket of China, I can’t recall who that was.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Third, I bet the patents are based on research paid for by me proven out by vaccines paid for by me. I am OK with giving technology paid for by me and tested by me to others. As a taxpayer, I pay for research for the betterment of humanity, not the enrichment of some well-connected oligarch.

    First, Operation Warp Speed was mostly government getting out of the way. The companies bore most of the expense themselves. By your argument, any company that gets a tax break or subsidy from the government should give all their patents away to our competitors overseas. Thus, China pirating technology is a good thing, since more people benefit at a lower cost. The trouble with that is if people in the United States don’t have the opportunity to profit from innovation, they’ll just stop innovating. And no one benefits.

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    Fourth, It is Big Pharma that lies and betrays the rest of us. Oligarchs boost profits by destroying competition. They are un-American and we should break them up.

    Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZenica-it seems like there is plenty of competition.

    Well said,Jose!

    • #17
  18. Paul Stinchfield Member
    Paul Stinchfield
    @PaulStinchfield

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):
    By your argument, any company that gets a tax break or subsidy from the government should give all their patents away to our competitors overseas.

    I have heard variations on that argument before, from various sorts of leftists: Any government subsidy or benefit or favor is justification for any arbitrary government taking. (And indeed Obama said that in his notorious, fascistic “You didn’t build that” speech.) In other words, nobody’s property is safe–especially if they are disliked or envied, and everybody is disliked or envied by somebody.

    • #18
  19. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Paul Stinchfield (View Comment):
    In other words, nobody’s property is safe–especially if they are disliked or envied, and everybody is disliked or envied by somebody.

    I am envious that I didn’t make that observation so now I dislike you.

    • #19
  20. Rodin Member
    Rodin
    @Rodin

    Don’t know what was in the federal government contracts with pharma on vaccine development but “march-in rights” is not uncommon. This may be what is going on. Don’t know. Just speculating. 

     

    • #20
  21. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Waiver is such s nice sounding word. Maybe Biden could also issue a waiver on the rules against murdering Republicans. Deregulation, it’s called. 

    • #21
  22. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Since when is our government supposed to protect the ability of foreigners to get something for free from our businesses?

    I don’t give more than a couple rats’ patooties whether other countries get free things from anyone.  

    • #22
  23. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):

    First, All four of your points are incorrect:

    -we have no good, proven therapy for COVID at this point. NONE. Despite all the tin foil hat level conspiracy theories out there neither HCQ nor Ivermectin have been shown to be effective at this point. Furthermore, prevention almost always is better than therapy.

    -destroying private property rights is almost always a bad idea. It discourages future innovation. While it is true that the Biden administration’s claims that removing patents will not rapidly increase vaccine production (the 3rd world doesn’t have much capacity to produce these vaccines at present) these steps will disincentivize firms like Pfizer and Moderna from investing in increasing capacity. Moderna had apparently already announced it would not enforce its patents.

    – government funded research typically yields patents for the government not for private concerns.

    -big pharma was the major vehicle in developing the vaccines at a cost of 10-18 Billion to the US government- an investment that will yield the feds TRILLIONS. You should pray your investment portfolio has similar  returns.

    • #23
  24. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    MiMac (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):

    First, All four of your points are incorrect:

    -we have no good, proven therapy for COVID at this point. NONE. Despite all the tin foil hat level conspiracy theories out there neither HCQ nor Ivermectin have been shown to be effective at this point. Furthermore, prevention almost always is better than therapy.

    -destroying private property rights is almost always a bad idea. It discourages future innovation. While it is true that the Biden administration’s claims that removing patents will not rapidly increase vaccine production (the 3rd world doesn’t have much capacity to produce these vaccines at present) these steps will disincentivize firms like Pfizer and Moderna from investing in increasing capacity. Moderna had apparently already announced it would not enforce its patents.

    – government funded research typically yields patents for the government not for private concerns.

    -big pharma was the major vehicle in developing the vaccines at a cost of 10-18 Billion to the US government- an investment that will yield the feds TRILLIONS. You should pray your investment portfolio has similar returns.

    We do have treatments for COVID; that’s why the majority of people hospitalized have survived and the survival rate is improving.  The trouble is, the treatments are not sexy miracle drugs, it’s the same treatments we do for any respiratory illness.  Supportive care, supplemental oxygen, steroids and antibiotics as necessary, proper positioning.  

    • #24
  25. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s fine.  If you don’t mind getting sick as long as there is a treatment that may make you well again, don’t get the shot.  I’d rather avoid getting sick in the first place.  I’ve had respiratory infections before and antibiotics cured me, but if I could have avoided getting them in the first place I would have been better off.

    • #25
  26. CorbinGlassauer Inactive
    CorbinGlassauer
    @CorbinGlassauer

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s fine. If you don’t mind getting sick as long as there is a treatment that may make you well again, don’t get the shot. I’d rather avoid getting sick in the first place. I’ve had respiratory infections before and antibiotics cured me, but if I could have avoided getting them in the first place I would have been better off.

    That’s your choice alright.

    I am glad that untested emergency drugs are not mandatory when there are treatments available.

    • #26
  27. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    CorbinGlassauer (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s fine. If you don’t mind getting sick as long as there is a treatment that may make you well again, don’t get the shot. I’d rather avoid getting sick in the first place. I’ve had respiratory infections before and antibiotics cured me, but if I could have avoided getting them in the first place I would have been better off.

    That’s your choice alright.

    I am glad that untested emergency drugs are not mandatory when there are treatments available.

    Well look at how useful untested drugs were on Captain America.

    If winners don't do drugs that means captain america is a loser -  Philosoraptor | Meme Generator

    • #27
  28. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    CorbinGlassauer (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s fine. If you don’t mind getting sick as long as there is a treatment that may make you well again, don’t get the shot. I’d rather avoid getting sick in the first place. I’ve had respiratory infections before and antibiotics cured me, but if I could have avoided getting them in the first place I would have been better off.

    That’s your choice alright.

    I am glad that untested emergency drugs are not mandatory when there are treatments available.

    I disagree that these vaccines are untested. The testing has been abbreviated, to be sure, and I understand that these vaccines are not given the full approval yet, just emergency approval.  But they are not untested.  It’s kind of funny how for years and years conservatives have complained about how long it takes the FDA to certify new drugs.  Then we have a Republican president chop out a bunch of red tape to accelerate the process and a bunch of conservatives want that red tape back.

    I agree that innoculation should not be mandatory, and I have not seen a single comment on Ricochet saying they should be.  I’m not even aware of any politicians saying that vaccination should be mandatory, although it’s likely that some of them have said it and those declarations just haven’t reached my ears.

    • #28
  29. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    I disagree that these vaccines are untested. The testing has been abbreviated, to be sure, and I understand that these vaccines are not given the full approval yet, just emergency approval.  But they are not untested.  It’s kind of funny how for years and years conservatives have complained about how long it takes the FDA to certify new drugs.  Then we have a Republican president chop out a bunch of red tape to accelerate the process and a bunch of conservatives want that red tape back.

    Exactly.  Well stated.

    I agree that innoculation should not be mandatory, and I have not seen a single comment on Ricochet saying they should be.  I’m not even aware of any politicians saying that vaccination should be mandatory, although it’s likely that some of them have said it and those declarations just haven’t reached my ears.

     

    • #29
  30. CorbinGlassauer Inactive
    CorbinGlassauer
    @CorbinGlassauer

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    CorbinGlassauer (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) (View Comment):
    First, I think the Wuhan Lab Flu vaccines are not necessary, since there are good treatments available–treatments that have been suppressed by Big Pharma.

    That’s fine. If you don’t mind getting sick as long as there is a treatment that may make you well again, don’t get the shot. I’d rather avoid getting sick in the first place. I’ve had respiratory infections before and antibiotics cured me, but if I could have avoided getting them in the first place I would have been better off.

    That’s your choice alright.

    I am glad that untested emergency drugs are not mandatory when there are treatments available.

    I disagree that these vaccines are untested. The testing has been abbreviated, to be sure, and I understand that these vaccines are not given the full approval yet, just emergency approval. But they are not untested. It’s kind of funny how for years and years conservatives have complained about how long it takes the FDA to certify new drugs. Then we have a Republican president chop out a bunch of red tape to accelerate the process and a bunch of conservatives want that red tape back.

    I agree that innoculation should not be mandatory, and I have not seen a single comment on Ricochet saying they should be. I’m not even aware of any politicians saying that vaccination should be mandatory, although it’s likely that some of them have said it and those declarations just haven’t reached my ears.

    If they’re not fully tested, they’re untested.

    Certainly not tested to the point that other drugs are tested and to the point that we know how they work and that they are safe.

    Come to think of it, they are — and the whole technology is — being tested on us.

    Added: I mean I’ve gotten the vaccine, back in February  But I still consider it to be untested.

    • #30