In an exclusive and explosive one-hour interview with Veronika Kyrylenko of The New American, pioneering mRNA scientist Dr. Robert Malone explains the intensely corrupt workings of the government regulatory bodies that have mismanaged the pandemic, discusses the problems with the vaccine program and delves into potentially explosive and game-changing revelations about the shady origins of the Covid-19 pandemic in Wuhan, China.
Merck
Browse the articles related to this topic below.
Join our community on Guilded.
On Thursday, the government published its 44th vaccine surveillance report and in a table on page 18 it noted 2,032 deaths of double-vaccinated individuals over 70. More than 3,000 from the same double-jabbed cohort were hospitalised.
Wikipedia snapshot from 9 March 2021:
| Year | Company | Settlement | Violation(s) | Product(s) | Laws allegedly violated (if applicable) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | GlaxoSmithKline[1][6] | $3 billion ($1B criminal, $2B civil) | Criminal: Off-label promotion, failure to disclose safety data. Civil: paying kickbacks to physicians, making false and misleading statements concerning the safety of Avandia, reporting false best prices and underpaying rebates owed under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program | Avandia (not providing safety data), Wellbutrin, Paxil (promotion of paediatric use), Advair, Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, Valtrex | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2009 | Pfizer[2] | $2.3 billion | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Bextra, Geodon, Zyvox, Lyrica | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2013 | Johnson & Johnson[7] | $2.2 billion | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Risperdal, Invega, Nesiritide | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2012 | Abbott Laboratories[8] | $1.5 billion | Off-label promotion | Depakote | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2009 | Eli Lilly[9] | $1.4 billion | Off-label promotion | Zyprexa | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2001 | TAP Pharmaceutical Products[10] | $875 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Lupron | False Claims Act, Prescription Drug Marketing Act |
| 2012 | Amgen[11] | $762 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Aranesp | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | GlaxoSmithKline[12] | $750 million | Poor manufacturing practices | Kytril, Bactroban, Paxil CR, Avandamet | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2005 | Serono[13] | $704 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, monopolistic practices | Serostim | False Claims Act |
| 2008 | Merck[14] | $650 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Zocor, Vioxx, Pepsid | False Claims Act, Medicaid Rebate Statute |
| 2007 | Purdue Pharma[15] | $601 million | Off-label promotion | Oxycontin | False Claims Act |
| 2010 | Allergan[16] | $600 million | Off-label promotion | Botox | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | AstraZeneca[17] | $520 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Seroquel | False Claims Act |
| 2007 | Bristol-Myers Squibb[18] | $515 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud | Abilify, Serzone | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2002 | Schering-Plough[19] | $500 million | Poor manufacturing practices | Claritin | FDA Current Good Manufacturing Practices |
| 2006 | Mylan[20] | $465 million | Misclassification under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program | EpiPen (epinephrine) | False Claims Act |
| 2006 | Schering-Plough[21] | $435 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks, Medicare fraud | Temodar, Intron A, K-Dur, Claritin RediTabs | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2004[22] | Pfizer | $430 million | Off-label promotion | Neurontin | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2008 | Cephalon[23] | $425 million | Off-label promotion[23] | Actiq, Gabitril, Provigil | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2010 | Novartis[24] | $423 million | Off-label promotion, kickbacks | Trileptal | False Claims Act, FDCA |
| 2003 | AstraZeneca[25] | $355 million | Medicare fraud | Zoladex | Prescription Drug Marketing Act |
| 2004 | Schering-Plough[26] | $345 million | Medicare fraud, kickbacks | Claritin | False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute |
Categories
Pharmaceutical fraud – Wikipedia
$3 billion GSK settlement. On 2 July 2012, GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to criminal charges and agreed to a $3 billion settlement of the largest health-care fraud case in the U.S. and the largest payment by a drug company. The settlement is related to the company’s illegal promotion of prescription drugs, its failure to report safety data, bribing doctors, and promoting medicines for uses for which they were not licensed. The drugs involved were Paxil, Wellbutrin, Advair, Lamictal, and Zofran for off-label, non-covered uses. Those and the drugs Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent, and Valtrex were involved in the kickback scheme. The government investigation of GSK was launched largely on the basis of information provided by four whistleblowers who filed two qui tam (whistleblower) lawsuits against the company under the False Claims Act. GSK settled the whistleblowers’ lawsuits for a total of $1.017 billion out of the $3 billion settlement, the largest civil False Claims Act settlement to date.
Pfizer $2.3 billion settlement: Pfizer settled multiple civil and criminal allegations for $2.3 billion in the largest case of pharmaceutical and health care fraud in US history. The drugs involved were Bextra (an anti-inflammatory drug), Geodon (an anti-psychotic drug), Lipitor (a cholesterol drug), Norvasc (anti-hypertensive drug), Viagra (erectile dysfunction), Zithromax (antibiotic), Zyrtec (antihistamine), Zyvox (an antibiotic), Lyrica (an anti-epileptic drug), Relpax (anti-migraine drug), Celebrex (anti-inflammatory drug), and Depo-provera (birth control).
Merck $650 million settlement: Merck settled a nominal pricing fraud case in which the company was accused of taking kickbacks and violating Medicaid best price regulations for various drugs.
United States et al., ex rel. Jim Conrad and Constance Conrad v. Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al. involved a drug manufacturer selling a drug, Levothroid, that had never been approved by the FDA. These allegations settled for $42.5 million due to multiple whistleblowers stepping forward to provide detailed information on the alleged fraud. The collective reward to the relators in this case was over $14.6 million.
Wikipedia snapshot from 28 January 2021:
In these studies, both V590 and V591 were generally well tolerated, but the immune responses were inferior to those seen following natural infection and those reported for other SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 vaccines.
Certain COVID-19 vaccine candidates could increase susceptibility to HIV, warns a group of researchers who in 2007 learned that an experimental HIV vaccine had raised in some people the risk for infection with the AIDS virus. These concerns have percolated in the background of the race for a vaccine to stem the coronavirus pandemic, but now the researchers have gone public with a “cautionary tale,” in part because trials of those candidates may soon begin in locales that have pronounced HIV epidemics, such as South Africa.
Some approved and experimental vaccines have as a backbone a variety of adenoviruses, which can cause the common cold but are often harmless. The ill-fated HIV vaccine trial used an engineered strain known as adenovirus 5 (Ad5) to shuttle into the body the gene for the surface protein of the AIDS virus. In four candidate COVID-19 vaccines now in clinical trials in several countries, including the United States, Ad5 similarly serves as the “vector” to carry in the surface protein gene of SARS-CoV-2, the viral cause of the pandemic; two of these have advanced to large-scale, phase III efficacy studies in Russia and Pakistan.
In today’s issue of The Lancet, four veteran researchers raise a warning flag about those COVID-19 vaccine candidates by recounting their experience running a placebo-controlled AIDS vaccine trial dubbed STEP. An interim analysis of STEP found that uncircumcised men who had been naturally infected with Ad5 before receiving the vaccine became especially vulnerable to the AIDS virus. The vaccine, made by Merck, had been the leading hope for what was then a 20-year search for a shot that could thwart HIV. But after the STEP results appeared, the field went into a tailspin. “It took a decade to recover,” says one of the co-authors of the Lancet correspondence, Lawrence Corey of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center.
Lancet study: Use of adenovirus type-5 vectored vaccines: a cautionary tale
None of this, however, explains the 40 years of medical
misinformation and suppression of the pharmaceutical truth.
To have covered up the knowledge for four decades that
viruses could potentially be treated by antimicrobials required
extensive effort:
• Censorship. It is likely that some scientists were never
published again after authoring one paper on the antiviral benefits of CQ.
• Buying silence of news media. This is evident from the
blackout across the political news spectrum concerning
vaccine adverse effects. Pharmaceutical manufacturers
provide the most lucrative advertising for both written
and broadcast news programs.
• Misdirection. For years, pharmacology professors in
medical schools have perpetuated lies of omission.
• Lies by drug companies. Merck was caught publishing its
own “peer reviewed” journal to promote its drugs.54
• Regulatory capture. “Big Pharma” essentially owns the
FDA by being its biggest funder and employing more
than 58 percent of the FDA’s upper-level regulators and
administrators either before or after their tenure.55,56
• Research funding. Big Pharma is the major funder of
nearly all “independent” drug research, and there is no
incentive to research cheap/ less profitable solutions.
The COVID-19 pandemic is calling attention to the
potential for treating viral diseases with currently available
drugs, and exposing long-available but ignored research.
The implications of all this are very disturbing. Where have
the virologists been, and the CDC “experts” who claim to care
about influenza deaths? Has the burgeoning nearly trilliondollar vaccine industry been built at the expense of patients’
lives?
Drugs are a risky business and, for equity investors hoping to eventually share in the profits, each stage of development presents an escalated risk. Lo reasoned that substantially lowering the risks, even if it meant correspondingly lowering the rewards, could attract investment instead from ordinary bond markets—that is, from managers of pension funds, university endowments, and sovereign-wealth funds, who control a great deal of money and generally invest in low-risk, low-return assets.
Given how uncertain vaccine markets are, the paper notes, governments (“public-sector interventions,” and so forth), would need to guarantee a vaccine bond by committing in advance to purchase and stockpile vaccines. The paper’s most creative suggestion is for a subscription model, a kind of vaccine Netflix, where governments would pay an annual fee to a new international-development fund, one that could perhaps be managed by the G7. The fund could float a bond to both advance vaccine biotechs and to make market commitments to Big Pharma. The virus, the markets, and the science are global.
…it would be much better for the government to say that the money is not from taxpayers. “We’re borrowing it from the rest of the world. And if and when you succeed, or any of the other hundred and fifty projects—that could have been funded, but aren’t being funded right now—succeeds, all the bond holders will get paid. That would be great. Everybody earns a return.”