Why do pharma companies need immunity against the law?

The authorities and pharma companies are not even trying to hide the fact that they see the population as anything more than a mob of guinea pigs without any rights.

Anything that doesn't fit the official "vision", even if it comes from medical experts recognized nationally or internationally, is claimed to be "conspiracy theory", and citizens are imperatively urged to be responsible.

But if citizens are urged responsibility, why doesn't the same principle apply to the political authorities or to pharma companies?

And how can you decry the negative effects of conspiracy and support the measures of silencing any contrary opinion when pharma companies themselves are causing their appearance?

How? Through the requests addressed to the authorities to be exonerated of any responsibility, including in terms of material damages, when it comes to the negative side effects of the anti-Covid vaccines.

A recent article posted by Reuters shows that "AstraZeneca will be exempted from the material liability in most countries with which it has concluded agreements to supply vaccines".

"This is a unique situation, and a company cannot take these risks if four years from now vaccines produce secondary effects", Ruud Dobber, member of the executive management of AstraZeneca, told Reuters.

Dobber also said that "for most countries taking on this risk is acceptable because it is in their national interest".

So in other words, it is in the national interest to conduct large scale experiments on a terrorized population, and then for the same population to pay damages, through the nation's budget, for the side effects?

So then, will there be a matching criminal and material liability for the governments that agree to this kind of experiments? Hard to believe.

The official of AstraZeneca declined to mention the names of countries that are ready to provide this kind of immunity to pharma companies.

Does that list include Romania as well? Shouldn't "our" government authorities provide the answer concerning extending the "immunity" for anti-Covid drug manufacturers?

Instead of acting ironically, on his Facebook account, if "you've ever wanted to practice medicine without the effort of being responsible for the people who die", maybe Dr. Raed Arafat should direct the call for responsibility in other directions as well, much "heavier", and provide an answer to Romania's citizens.

Reuters also writes that the American authorities have approved the legal framework for the exempting drug companies from material liability since back in 2005.

Discussing the article posted by Reuters, Zerohedge writes that "the request for immunity against the law shows that the corporate elites and government regulatory institutions have very little faith in these vaccines".

The way that the action to "inform" the population in the US concerning the new coronavirus has caused analyst Martin Armstrong to write on his blog that "there is a conspiracy of the mass-media against the population" and he gives the example of Youtube moderators, who are censoring any kind of statements that contradict the position expressed by the World Health Organization or by Bill Gates, even though the latter has no medical expertise whatsoever.

Armstrong then provided a personal example. A close relative of his, whom he says was "a nurse on the frontline in New Jersey", was infected with the new coronavirus and was declared cured after two days. Her husband, overweight and suffering from diabetes, needed hospitalization after being infected, but he returned home after a few days, as he followed the treatment with hydroxchloroquine and zinc.

Why isn't everybody who is infected being granted the option to be treated with this extremely cheap drug?

The answer is provided in the article "Gilead: 21 billion reasons for discrediting hydroxychloroquine" from the website of the OmniJournal publication.

"No drug in the history of medicine has been the subject of so many attacks from the mass-media, the World Health Organization, government officials and institutionalized medical "experts" like hydroxychloroquine has", the introduction states, where it is also mentioned that the drug has been prescribed to patients over the last 65 years.

Even though "its safety has been proven in decades of use", all of a sudden its hydroxychloroquine is considered a dangerous and poisonous substance after being proven to be a cure for COVID-19".

In the list of references, most to articles in specialized magazines, a series of "curiosities".

One of the references is to the Official Journal of the French Republic. In issue 12 of January 15 2020 it is stated that "hydroxychloroquine in all its forms is included in the second list of poisonous substances", and the author of the OmniJournal article, doctor James Todaro, reminds that the new classification comes after decades where the drug has been issued without prescription in France.

A few weeks after the ban, reputable doctor Didier Raoult has presented the results of some clinical tests proving the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine against COVID-19.

The OmniJournal article also reminds that the prophylactic and therapeutical effects of chloroquine were known since 2005, in its use against SARS-CoV, the virus responsible for SARS.

The study was published in the magazine "Virology Journal" of August 22nd, 2005 under the title "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread" and is available online on the website BioMed Central, part of Springer Nature. At the time the article was published, the magazine "Virology Journal" was published by the institution where doctor Anthony Fauci works, National Institutes of Health (NIH), as general manager of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

The author of the OmniJournal article points out that the maker of Remdesivir, pharmaceutical company Gilead, has "a direct interest in hydroxychloroquine failing", as the company's market value dropped about 21 billion dollars after president Trump's announcement about the use of hydroxychloroquine and have recouped the "loss" after the announcement of doctor Fauci concerning the vaccine's success in a number of tests.

Another interesting aspect pointed out in the OmniJournal article is the strong tie between specialized publications and the pharma industry.

"Medical publications have increasingly become marketing instruments for the pharma industry", writes doctor James Todaro, who quotes a statement of a former editor of the prestigious magazine "New England Journal of Medicine", Marcia Angell, which was featured in the book "The truth about pharmaceutical companies", published by Random House in August 2005.

"Having become more of a marketing machine for the sale of drugs of doubtful benefits, the pharma industry is using its money and power to co-opt every institution that stands in its way, including the US Congress, the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the university medical centers and the medical profession itself", Marcia Angell wrote.

How much has the situation "improved", 15 years after the book was published?

Doctor Todaro's article in OmniJournal also provides data on the scale of the "donations" received by the WHO from pharma companies.

Its director, doctor Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, recently said that despite the large number of anti-Covid vaccines being tested, "a miracle solution may never be found", and a recent article in the Los Angeles Times comes with more worrisome information.

According to federal norms in the US, "a vaccine for COVID-19 can be licensed for use if it proves safe and efficient in at least half of those that receive it", the paper writes, and it also states that "the effectiveness is not defined in the halting of the infections with the new coronavirus, just in the minimization of the symptoms", according to experts.

Is that how the "effectiveness" of an anti-Covid vaccine is defined in Romania as well? Let's hop that the answer is not "yes", and the government doesn't feel it is acceptable to take over the responsibility for the secondary effects in the stead of pharma companies, under the cover of "national interest", as the representative of the company asking for immunity against the law was arrogantly saying.

Perhaps the time has come to objectively assess the available options, without hysterical statements by the authorities and without measures to silence the voices of those that rock the apple cart, because the mass vaccination of citizens, looked at only as a mob of people without rights that needs to be "immunized", opens a pathway too terrible to be contemplated.