Booster shots INCREASE Big Pharma profits: Does the science justify this “health” policy?
(NaturalHealth365) It was April of this year when Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said people would “likely” need a third booster shot of his company’s highly profitable COVID-19 shot. In an interview with CNBC, Bourla also predicted that “there will be an annual revaccination” as well.
At the time, Bourla claimed that “variants will play a key role” in whether these additional jabs will be needed. But as the pandemic allegedly rolls on and reports of breakthrough cases continue to hit the headlines, many people are doubtful about Pfizer’s true motivation to push these shots.
Profits over public health? Experts question the true motivation behind COVID-19 booster shots and annual COVID injection pushed by Big Pharma
Which will a third COVID shot actually boost more: public health or Pfizer profits?
As it stands, Pfizer has already doubled its second-quarter revenue and increased its profits by almost 60%, according to U.S. News. Pfizer also updated its projected revenue from its COVID shot alone to over $33.5 billion – 29 percent higher than its earlier estimate of “just” $26 billion.
Their profits could rise even more exponentially for a few reasons:
- The drug company recently raised the price of their injection to $24 per dose – up from the $19.50 per dose previously paid for by the U.S. government (or American taxpayers, to be more exact)
- Pfizer is pushing for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for their shot in kids under 12, possibly opening up a huge need for more jabs in the near future
- Pfizer is currently pushing for EUA of a COVID booster shot
Many public health officials question the necessity of yet ANOTHER jab, including officials from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) itself.
In June, members of the COVID-19 working group of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) voiced their disagreement with Pfizer. In an article published on CNBC, ACIP member Dr. Sharon Frey said, “there’s no data to support recommendations to support boosters at this time.”
For their part, Pfizer officials insist they DO have this data. Moreover, they recently claimed a third COVID shot boosts antibody levels by five times and increases protection against the so-called Delta variant.
Here’s the problem: the data Pfizer used to make this claim is not peer-reviewed and comes from a cohort of just 23 people. Plus, as pointed out by David Dowdy, infectious disease epidemiologist from Johns Hopkins, even if antibody levels increase by 5 times after a third dose, this does not prove that protection is enhanced.
CDC disagrees with widespread booster shots for now … but will they change their tune?
While the ACIP says there is currently “no data” to support booster shots, the CDC committee has also stated that third doses may be necessary for certain populations, including older adults and people who are immunocompromised.
Using language that is concerning to some health experts, the ACIP has also suggested that rising breakthrough cases may also be a reason to push a third shot. For example, consider this troubling opinion from ACIP member, Dr. Grace Lee, quoted in the above-mentioned CNBC article: “If we’re seeing severe breakthrough cases, then I think the decision-making moves forward [to give a third dose] even if there’s uncertainty with the safety data” (emphasis ours).
Interesting, isn’t it?
First, a pharmaceutical company believes it can make public health recommendations, despite the painfully obvious bias (after all – the recommendations they make will directly and significantly boost their profits).
Second, health officials insist additional doses of a medical product that didn’t work effectively the first time could be necessary for protecting the American public … even if they don’t fully know the risks involved.
Let’s read between the lines here:
If CDC officials say there will need to be more breakthrough cases before they recommend a third booster shot, does this mean the government agency will finally start investigating the TRUE rates of breakthrough cases, rather than only looking at breakthrough cases that lead to hospitalization and/or death as they are now? Will the media and White House officials start reporting on the true rate of breakthrough cases, too?
And, finally, will officials finally acknowledge the prevalence of injection failure (which the so-called “anti-jab” folks have been pointing to all along) only to use this as a way to justify booster shots and annual doses?
Sources for this article include: