Hmmm. "The public had lost trust in big pharma companies decades ago"...I surely don't see that at all. Going into the Walgreens in my smaller town connected another smaller town (both with a combined population of about 20K), I counted at least 1,000 prescriptions waiting to be picked up (six rows, 26 bins/row, average 7-8 packages/bin).
With a Walmart, Kroger, Meijers and a few smaller drug stores as well as a hospital providing prescriptions, it seems that people love their drugs more than ever.
Anything that has gates's name stamped on it is 100% fraudulent. Even moderna is a one vaccine company over-hyped and that actually receives government grants to help it stay afloat.
I will never dis-believe that all drug companies are farces.
They operate on the 120 year idea that all diseases/viruses/parasites are communicable. That of course has never been proven. It's all a big fat lie with the express purpose of creating the fear of death and the rush to use drugs to save your life. Good luck with that.
Yeah, I agree. Since 2021, everyone needs big pharma. It's mirrors a few movie plots. Create the problem, then supply the solution.
"Absolon is a 2003 post-apocalyptic science fiction thriller film directed by David Barto and starring Christopher Lambert, Lou Diamond Phillips, and Kelly Brook. The plot concerns a future society where the only hope for survival from a deadly virus is a drug called Absolon.
Plot: In 2010, a deadly virus infected everyone on the planet, wiping out 50% of the population. Absolon is a drug regimen that everyone must now take to stay alive. One corporation controls the drug and Murchison (Ron Perlman) is its leader."
I was not able to understand why Hedley calls Biontech a fake company.
Are you feeling well, Hedley?
Just as a matter of communications coherency, you've shat the bed with this one.
Hedley publishes this remarkable claim: "BioNTech is just a pretty website with photos of lies, upon lies, upon lies…"
Oh, that *is* provocative. I'm sure the writer will go on to tell us why the company is just a legal fiction, a shell and lies, uipon lies, upon lies..."
But Hedley does not explain the provocative statement. Does not show what the lies are.
Instead Hedley goes-on to justify the claim with "They were mean to me in court! WAAAH!"
"Scroll over to James Ryan, Chief Legal Officer, and you may be surprised to learn that I know him both personally and professionally. He worked previously for pharma law firms Morrison & Forrester (MoFo) and Covington. He recommended me as an expert witness for the defendant (AstraZeneca) in a class action relating to preventing generic entry for the AZ drug Nexium. I proved AZ were guilty so they asked me to stand down!"
Hedley, this is nonsense, and you probably know it. It was the other German company, CureVac, that had close relationships with Gates (and Musk). They were the ones that Trump tried to convince to relocate to the US as they seemed ahead with the Sars-Cov-2 MRNA code. They eventually failed because they did not use the pseudo uridine insertion for patent reasons. Then BioNTech made the race, without Gates.
Hedley is correct and BioNTech did get money from Gates. Moderna also got money from Gates back in 2019. Their SEC filing shows Gates and pharma companies as investors.
Both companies as Hedley has stated several times have absolutely no history bringing drugs to market. Why would Gates invest in both these mRNA companies? He must have known Covid was going to happen and there would be a massive financial return in investing in these two unknown biotechs.
No "seek truth". Seems bioNTech really did get $$ from the G. Foundation. Their investment constituted approximately 33.68% of its assets at the time, translating to around one million shares in BioNTech. You should[edit: n't] contradict the OP without really solid references. Otherwise it is libel.
A disagreement about a point of fact is not libel.
Additionally, libel 'laws' are not law-ful at all (Bastiat). They're just censorship.
You do not own my mouth. You do not own the minds of people I talk with. Nothing I say to anyone else is subject to *your* lawful interdiction, even if i say "Jason likes to bathe with rubber duckies!"
"A disagreement about a point of fact is not libel."
The legal question you raise hinges on whether or not person writing the apparently false information suspected it was false, not if they were actually wrong or actually right; it is libel if the author knew it was not a correct fact. The precedential case is, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a SCOTUS case, so what I said is probably correct and what you wrote is probably not generally correct which is a polite way of saying your claim is wrong.
This doesn't mean that all incorrect posters are libelling. But, in this case, the OP posted the data with references, so you probably knew you were lying. IMO if you found an error in the OP's data, you'd have posted that instead, but you just libeled IMO under the assumption that people like to go with the flow. (Here, the flow, is you and your myriad buddies.)
Hedley did you see this? https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-19/soon-shiong-launches-1-billion-dose-vaccine-plant-in-cape-town
https://medicinespatentpool.org/uploads/2021/07/Letter_of_Intent_mRNA_hub.pdf
living in La La Land, Sunface Jack, that where they are!
No, but I’ll check it out and get back, thanks Jack 👍
Hmmm. "The public had lost trust in big pharma companies decades ago"...I surely don't see that at all. Going into the Walgreens in my smaller town connected another smaller town (both with a combined population of about 20K), I counted at least 1,000 prescriptions waiting to be picked up (six rows, 26 bins/row, average 7-8 packages/bin).
With a Walmart, Kroger, Meijers and a few smaller drug stores as well as a hospital providing prescriptions, it seems that people love their drugs more than ever.
Anything that has gates's name stamped on it is 100% fraudulent. Even moderna is a one vaccine company over-hyped and that actually receives government grants to help it stay afloat.
I will never dis-believe that all drug companies are farces.
They operate on the 120 year idea that all diseases/viruses/parasites are communicable. That of course has never been proven. It's all a big fat lie with the express purpose of creating the fear of death and the rush to use drugs to save your life. Good luck with that.
Yeah, I agree. Since 2021, everyone needs big pharma. It's mirrors a few movie plots. Create the problem, then supply the solution.
"Absolon is a 2003 post-apocalyptic science fiction thriller film directed by David Barto and starring Christopher Lambert, Lou Diamond Phillips, and Kelly Brook. The plot concerns a future society where the only hope for survival from a deadly virus is a drug called Absolon.
Plot: In 2010, a deadly virus infected everyone on the planet, wiping out 50% of the population. Absolon is a drug regimen that everyone must now take to stay alive. One corporation controls the drug and Murchison (Ron Perlman) is its leader."
But IMO both of you are right.
I was not able to understand why Hedley calls Biontech a fake company.
Are you feeling well, Hedley?
Just as a matter of communications coherency, you've shat the bed with this one.
Hedley publishes this remarkable claim: "BioNTech is just a pretty website with photos of lies, upon lies, upon lies…"
Oh, that *is* provocative. I'm sure the writer will go on to tell us why the company is just a legal fiction, a shell and lies, uipon lies, upon lies..."
But Hedley does not explain the provocative statement. Does not show what the lies are.
Instead Hedley goes-on to justify the claim with "They were mean to me in court! WAAAH!"
"Scroll over to James Ryan, Chief Legal Officer, and you may be surprised to learn that I know him both personally and professionally. He worked previously for pharma law firms Morrison & Forrester (MoFo) and Covington. He recommended me as an expert witness for the defendant (AstraZeneca) in a class action relating to preventing generic entry for the AZ drug Nexium. I proved AZ were guilty so they asked me to stand down!"
Dude, really, are you OK? You can tell us.
I could bike to the facility and ask any questions you want, but I'd probably get put oin some government list.
Maybe my life goal should be to get on *all* the lists.
Hedley, this is nonsense, and you probably know it. It was the other German company, CureVac, that had close relationships with Gates (and Musk). They were the ones that Trump tried to convince to relocate to the US as they seemed ahead with the Sars-Cov-2 MRNA code. They eventually failed because they did not use the pseudo uridine insertion for patent reasons. Then BioNTech made the race, without Gates.
What do you mean by "Hedley, this is nonsense, and you probably know it" Why would i knowingly publish lies? Just want to understand your reasoning?
Hedley is correct and BioNTech did get money from Gates. Moderna also got money from Gates back in 2019. Their SEC filing shows Gates and pharma companies as investors.
Both companies as Hedley has stated several times have absolutely no history bringing drugs to market. Why would Gates invest in both these mRNA companies? He must have known Covid was going to happen and there would be a massive financial return in investing in these two unknown biotechs.
Thanks Alison!
No "seek truth". Seems bioNTech really did get $$ from the G. Foundation. Their investment constituted approximately 33.68% of its assets at the time, translating to around one million shares in BioNTech. You should[edit: n't] contradict the OP without really solid references. Otherwise it is libel.
Thanks Jason!
A disagreement about a point of fact is not libel.
Additionally, libel 'laws' are not law-ful at all (Bastiat). They're just censorship.
You do not own my mouth. You do not own the minds of people I talk with. Nothing I say to anyone else is subject to *your* lawful interdiction, even if i say "Jason likes to bathe with rubber duckies!"
"A disagreement about a point of fact is not libel."
The legal question you raise hinges on whether or not person writing the apparently false information suspected it was false, not if they were actually wrong or actually right; it is libel if the author knew it was not a correct fact. The precedential case is, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964). This is a SCOTUS case, so what I said is probably correct and what you wrote is probably not generally correct which is a polite way of saying your claim is wrong.
This doesn't mean that all incorrect posters are libelling. But, in this case, the OP posted the data with references, so you probably knew you were lying. IMO if you found an error in the OP's data, you'd have posted that instead, but you just libeled IMO under the assumption that people like to go with the flow. (Here, the flow, is you and your myriad buddies.)
I love it when people talk sense!