Pfizer and other sociopaths

“ . . . if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.”

Winston Churchill spoke these words just before the Battle of Britain, but if he were alive today he could be referring to the Covid ‘pandemic’. His reference to “the lights of perverted science” would have rendered his words even more fitting in the fight against rule by Big Pharma.

In an earlier essay I argued that New Zealand, together with many other nominally ‘democratic’ countries, is fascist, and in a follow-up, I went on to argue that Pfizer and other Big Pharma corporations are organized crime networks operating what amounts to a global protection racket.

What I left unsaid was that Pfizer and other corporations are also sociopathic – the purpose of this essay.

* * *

In an open letter to the CEO of the UK General Medical Council, Dr Aseem Malhotra, an internationally distinguished and award-winning cardiologist stated that

“The diagnosis made by the pre-eminent forensic psychologist Dr Robert Hare and law professor Joel Bakan over 20 years ago is that Big Corporations (such as Big Pharma) are psychopathic in their pursuit of profit. Institutionally, they show the same characteristic behaviours as individuals with psychopathic tendencies: callous unconcern for the safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit.” (emphasis added)

Robert Hare is a leading forensic psychologist specialising in psychopathology. He developed the widely used Hare Psychopathy Checklist for assessing cases of psychopathy.

He also drew a distinction between ‘psychopathy’ and ‘sociopathy’ on the basis that the former are ‘born’, whereas the latter are ‘made’. Psychopathy manifests itself in early childhood and is thus innate, while sociopathy develops as a result of environmental experience. In the struggle up ‘the greasy pole’, politics is likely a potent influence.

Since I doubt if anyone imagines that Big Pharma CEOs and politicians such as Jacinda Ardern and Justin Trudeau enjoyed torturing animals when they were children, we can assume their manifest lack of conscience is the product of life experience. For that reason, throughout most of this essay I shall describe the perpetrators as sociopathic rather than psychopathic.

Despite the clear distinction, the terms are often used interchangeably, and since I shall be quoting Joel Bakan, I shall begin with his use of the term.

Bakan deals with the nature of the corporation in his book “The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power”. In it, he shows how the world’s dominant institution is essentially psychopathic, being amoral and without conscience. A YouTube documentary is based on his book.

Bakan shows that corporations not only put shareholders’ interests (i.e. profit) above everything else, they are bound to do so (at least, in the United States) by law. As Bakan puts it, “corporate responsibility is thus illegal, at least when it is genuine.”

I shall be revisiting this particular quote from Bakan’s book later.

In lacking any consideration for human welfare, corporations thus fall within the definition of psychopaths (if it seems odd to regard an organization as having a personality, since the end of the 19^th century, corporations have been legally considered in the U.S. as ‘persons’).

As management guru Peter Drucker said to Bakan:

“If you find an executive who wants to take on social responsibilities, fire him. Fast.”

Journalist and entrepreneur Brian Basham, writing in The Independent, recalls a senior UK investment banker saying: “At one major investment bank for which I worked, we used sociometric testing to recruit social sociopaths because their characteristics exactly suited them to senior corporate finance roles.”

The following two examples described in Bakan’s book illustrate the nature of corporate psychopathy.

• On Christmas Day 1994, a mother and her four children in their Chevrolet Malibu car was hit from behind when stopped at traffic lights, causing the petrol tank to explode, badly burning all five of them. General Motors was sued, and in the trial, evidence was produced showing that GM knew the tank was positioned so far back that it could explode on impact. This was not an isolated case; about 500 people were being killed in this way each year at the time when the new Malibu cars were being planned. A company engineer calculated that each fatality could cost GM $200,000 in legal damages. Dividing this figure by 41 million – the number of cars GM had on the road , the engineer concluded that each death cost GM only $2.40. The cost of relocating the fuel tanks to ensure that they not explode in rear-impact crashes was estimated to be $8.59 per car. The company could therefore save $6.19 per car if it let people die in such fires rather than alter the design of vehicles to avoid them (Bakan, pp. 61-63). Human life was never considered by General Motors.
• In 1998 the International Monetary Fund lent the government of Bolivia $138 million. A condition was that the government would sell off its publicly owned assets, including the city of Cochabamba’s water agency. After a secretly negotiated deal, Cochabamba’s water facilities were sold for $12.5 billion to the Bechtel Corporation, which had given assurances that water prices wouldn’t rise by more than 35 per cent. By January 2000, prices had more than doubled, and one particularly egregious regulation was that the people were not even allowed to collect rainwater in tanks (pp 164-166).

In an unofficial referendum, 96% of the 50 000 people voted against the water privatization, but even after protests turned violent, the government refused to end the contract. President Hugo Banzer declared a “state of siege” and finally, when police fired live ammunition into protesting crowds and the situation threatened to turn into mass insurrection, Banzer was forced to end privatization.

* * *

The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes Against Humanity

It’s now clear that Aseem Malhotra was right on the money when he stated that Big Pharma is psychopathic, subordinating the lives of patients to profit for its shareholders.

Recalling Bakan’s statement that “corporate responsibility is thus illegal, at least when it is genuine,” Pfizer would have been arguably breaking U.S. law had it taken account of warning signs on the ‘safety and efficacy’ of its Covid injections.

Despite the compelling evidence of government complicity, many will still resist the implication that governments and media are co-complicit in the deaths of thousands of innocent people. And in light of recent disclosures forced on the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), some will argue that ‘murder’ might be appropriate.

* * *

FDA complicity can be traced to August 23, 2021 with a press release “FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine”.

Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock gave this reassuring statement:

“The FDA’s approval of this vaccine is a milestone as we continue to battle the COVID-19 pandemic. While this and other vaccines have met the FDA’s rigorous, scientific standards for emergency use authorization, as the first FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine, the public can be very confident that this vaccine meets the high standards for safety, effectiveness, and manufacturing quality the FDA requires of an approved product.”

The director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D, followed with:

“Our scientific and medical experts conducted an incredibly thorough and thoughtful evaluation of this vaccine. We evaluated scientific data and information included in hundreds of thousands of pages, conducted our own analyses of Comirnaty’s safety and effectiveness, and performed a detailed assessment of the manufacturing processes, including inspections of the manufacturing facilities. We have not lost sight that the COVID-19 public health crisis continues in the U.S. and that the public is counting on safe and effective vaccines. The public and medical community can be confident that although we approved this vaccine expeditiously, it was fully in keeping with our existing high standards for vaccines in the U.S.”

A month later, on 22 September, 2021 the FDA authorised the COVID-19 booster. Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, M.D:

“Today’s action demonstrates that science and the currently available data continue to guide the FDA’s decision-making for COVID-19 vaccines during this pandemic. After considering the totality of the available scientific evidence and the deliberations of our advisory committee of independent, external experts, the FDA amended the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to allow for a booster dose in certain populations such as health care workers, teachers and day care staff, grocery workers and those in homeless shelters or prisons, among others.”

Pouring on the reassurance, director of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Peter Marks, M.D., Ph.D. said:

“We’re grateful for the advice of the doctors, scientists, and leading vaccine experts on our advisory committee and the important role they have played in ensuring transparent discussions about COVID-19 vaccines. We appreciate the robust discussion, including the vote regarding individuals over 65 years of age and individuals at high risk for severe disease, as well as the committee’s views regarding the use of a booster dose for those with institutional or occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2. The FDA considered the committee’s input and conducted its own thorough review of the submitted data to reach today’s decision. We will continue to analyze data submitted to the FDA pertaining to the use of booster doses of COVID-19 vaccines and we will make further decisions as appropriate based on the data.”

The public could therefore be forgiven for thinking that, particularly regarding Peter Marks’ reassurance about transparency, they could take the injection with confidence.

It turned out that ‘transparency’ didn’t mean what it said. In fact it didn’t mean anything at all, because the FDA hadn’t even released the documents, weeks after a Federal lawsuit had been filed.

This, despite the fact that federal law states that, once licensed, the “data and information in the licensed vaccine are immediately available for public disclosure.”

Reassurances about transparency turned out to be hollow because, when a group of over 30 distinguished academics requested release of the data on which the FDA had relied upon to licence the Covid jab, the FDA asked a federal judge to delay the complete release of the data for 75 years until 2097, by which time nearly all those affected by the Pfizer ‘vaccine’ and those responsible – the Pfizer and FDA executives – would be dead.

Now why would they want to do that, if they were being transparent?

Unless they had something to hide.

U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman would have none of it. On January 6, 2022, he ordered that the FDA to release the 450,000 pages of documents at a rate of 55,000 pages every 30 days, rather than the 500 pages per month that the FDA had requested. With the first release beginning by March 1, 2022, the Pfizer vaccine data would be public by the end of September 2023 rather than the year 2097, which the FDA had wanted.

The analysis of such an enormous quantities of data could only be achieved by a team of medical and scientific specialists with diverse expertise. The challenge was taken up by investigative journalist and author Naomi Wolf and Amy Kelly, who gathered and coordinated such a volunteer team.

For two years Amy Kelly and her team of volunteers worked through 2,369 documents and the result was their recently published book “The Pfizer Papers: Pfizer’s Crimes against Humanity”.

It’s a big book, in every sense of the word. Its 408 pages are packed with information showing that the ‘safe and effective’ mantra that was the PR tool to coerce millions of people into taking the Covid injection was nothing less than a barefaced lie.

A sample of the revelations:

• Within 3 months of the injection becoming available, Pfizer had become aware that it was ineffective in preventing the spread of Covid.
• Whereas officialdom claimed that the vaccine remained localised in the shoulder muscle, Pfizer knew that within 48 hours it became widely distributed in the liver, adrenal glands, spleen, ovaries, and crossed the blood-brain barrier into the brain.
• Pfizer knew by April 2021 that its injection was damaging the hearts of young people.
• Pfizer knew, by the end of February 2021, that its injection was linked to many adverse events. In addition to over 1,233 deaths within 3 months, there were cases of liver and kidney injury, autoimmune diseases, facial paralysis, multiple organ failure, thousands of arthritis-type joint pain, blood clots, myocarditis, and pericarditis. Half of the serious adverse events, including death, took place within seventy-two hours of the injection. Half of the strokes took place within forty-eight hours of injection.
• In Chapter 10, Ute Krüger, a specialist in breast cancer, documents a surge in cancers following the introduction of the mRNA Covid injections. Kruger reports that she was suddenly receiving reports of: tumours in young people, 30-50 years old; tumours that were growing unusually fast; and most significantly, tumours that were multifocal, meaning that two or more tumours had originated independently in the same breast.
• The most sinister effects were on women’s reproduction. By early 2021 Pfizer knew that its Covid injections caused serious foetal and infant risks, including death (23% of vaccinated mothers’ foetuses or new-born infants died). Link here.

Despite this, Pfizer mounted a campaign to vaccinate pregnant women. Chapter 2 reveals, unsurprisingly, that nine months after the COVID mRNA ‘vaccine’ rollout, there were significant falls in birth rates in 13 of 19 European countries, England/Wales, Australia, and Taiwan.”

The above are but a  sample of the compelling evidence that Pfizer continued to promote the sale of its Covid-19 ‘vaccine’ knowing within three months of the ‘vaccine’ rollout that it had already killed and severely injured thousands.

Table 1 of the document (dated 30 April, 2021) summarises the analysis of Pfizer’s Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports

Note that out of 42086 cases, 1223 were fatal. No wonder that Pfizer didn’t want the data to be released.

At this point it is timely to recall Aseem Malhotra’s description of Big Pharma as showing

“callous unconcern for the safety of others, incapacity to experience guilt, repeated lying and conning others for profit.”

* * *

The big question – what could be the motive?

The most obvious candidate, of course, would be profit, as the CNBC headline “The Covid pandemic drives Pfizer’s 2022 revenue to a record $100 billion” would suggest.

But could it be just about greed? Are governments simply acting as servants of Big Pharma’s shareholders, or could there be more to it?

A second hypothesis is that the globalists’ and their client governments are using the Covid ‘pandemic’ to control the rest of us through fear.

With the clarity of hindsight, what was purportedly justified as necessary public health measures to control a virus can now be seen to be deliberately stoked fear, as UK government documents show.

On 22^nd March 2020, SPI-B, the behavioural science sub-group of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), published a document titled “Options for increasing adherence to social distancing measures”, advocating the use of applied psychology to influence social behaviour. Though the focus of the document was on social distancing rather than masks, the intention to use fear is clear:

“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging. To be effective this must also empower people by making clear the actions they can take to reduce the threat.”

Moreover, Option 2 of Appendix B recommends using the media “to increase sense of personal threat” [emphasis added]. This was documented by Laura Dodsworth, explained in an introduction to her book A State of Fear. In an introductory article she gives some examples of things to be afraid of. A small sample:

• Being tall: “People over 6ft have double the risk of coronavirus, study suggests” (UK DailyTelegraph 28 July 2020)
• Being bald: “Bad news for baldies as new US study finds they’re 40% more at risk of coronavirus. New research has found a strange link between male baldness and the severity of the virus showing men without hair are more likely to end up in hospital.” (Daily Star, July 23, 2020).
• Owning a dog and taking home supermarket deliveries: “Dog-owners face 78% higher risk of catching Covid-19 – and home grocery deliveries DOUBLE the risk, study finds.” (Mailonline 17 November 2020).
• Being male: “Is testicle pain potentially a sign of Covid? 49-year-old Turkish man who had no other symptoms is diagnosed with the virus” (Mailonline 18 November 2020) and
• Erectile dysfunction: “COVID-19 could cause erectile dysfunction in patients who have recovered from the virus, doctor warns” (Daily Mail, Dec 6, 2020)
• Your toes: “Coronavirus: People who contract COVID may develop red and swollen toes which turn purple, say scientists” (Sky News UK 29 October, 2020

Taken individually, these might be amusing, but together, they are part of “a panoply of doom-mongering headlines”.

* * *

“When I look at the shelf with all the Red Data Books listing endangered species I just wonder what it would be like to be reincarnated in an animal whose species had been so reduced in numbers than it was in danger of extinction. What would be its feelings toward the human species whose population explosion had denied it somewhere to exist… I must confess that I am tempted to ask for reincarnation as a particularly deadly virus, but that is perhaps going too far.” (emphasis added)

Prince Philip (father of four children), in his Foreword to People as Animals, by Fleur Cowles.

While greed and power seem to be the most widely accepted motives, a third possibility was alluded to by Naomi Wolf in a recent podcast interview, in which she shared her dark thoughts on the subject.

The most insidious effect of the mRNA injection has been on women’s reproduction, mentioned earlier. Wolf believes that it’s part of a plan to reduce world population.

And there’s no lack of evidence in support of this view:

• Doctor Sounds Alarm: Stillbirths Explode in Canada (Video)

and

• Pfizer and FDA knew in early 2021 about dire fetal and infant risks

and

• COVID Vaccines Causing Miscarriages, Cancer and Neurological Disorders Among Military, DOD Data Show

So, Is the world really overpopulated?

While there is evidence that the global programme of mRNA injection is having a depopulating effect, does it necessarily mean that this is the motive?

A lot depends on whether the world really is overpopulated or rather, whether the globalists think it is.

Bill Gates seems to think so, but that’s another story.

And Sir David Attenborough, hardly a globalist billionaire, certainly thinks so. In an interview with UK Radio Times in January 2013, he said:

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now,”

His message was not received with unalloyed enthusiasm. Typical of his detractors was Liam Deacon’s article in the online magazine Spiked, titled: “David Attenborough’s anti-human miserabilism”.

Attenborough certainly had his work cut out to convince the general public that the world is overpopulated. Part of the reason is the difficulty most of us have when weighing the interests of our generation against those of our children and grandchildren and, more problematic, those of individuals with those of society.

So any government action to control population growth comes into head-on collision with freedoms and rights. China’s one-child’ policy could only have been adopted by a government that had no concern for the rights of the individual.

Problems vs predicaments

Closely linked to the inability of many people to distinguish between thoughts and feelings, is an almost universal inability of politicians and voters to understand is the distinction between a problem and a predicament.

A problem is something that has a potential solution, whereas a predicament is something that one has to be dealt with, but cannot be solved in the sense that the situation can be made to ‘go away’.

The people who jumped out of the burning skyscrapers on September 11, 2001 were in a ghastly predicament. Nothing they could do could avoid death; it was not a problem that could be solved. Faced with inevitable death, it was a matter of choosing between two possible outcomes, an agonizing death or an instantaneous one.

For politicians, ‘population’ is neither a problem nor a predicament – they just don’t want to talk about it at all, because there’s nothing they can blame on the opposition. But for those few citizens that think about such things, it’s a predicament, because of the recognition that arresting the climb of world population runs into collision with ‘rights’ and ‘freedoms’.

But for sociopaths, it’s not so much a predicament as a problem, since human values don’t enter into it.

And as a problem, it has a solution.

So what kind of solution could bring about the necessary reduction in numbers?

Much of this essay has been concerned with ‘motive’ which leaves ‘means’.

In recent times, two scientific and technological developments have made it possible:

• The introduction of 5G technology has enabled governments to monitor the behaviour of millions of people simultaneously. One only has to think of social control in China, in which Orwell’s 1984 is close to reality. In countries in which society is aware of China’s social control, Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) could be highly effective, as it could be introduced under a cloak of such social benefits as preventing financial fraud.
• Gain-of-function research, which has the aim of increasing the transmissibility and/or virulence of microbial pathogens. The ideal agent would not have to be a virus – it could be a ‘vaccine’ produced to ‘protect’ people from a virus.

And the ‘vaccine’ would not need to be effective against the virus; rather, its intended effects would be to cause death by mimicking already familiar causes of death, such cardiovascular malfunctions and cancer.

Its most effective action would be to attack the female reproductive system.

To maximise its effects, people would have to be pressured by government and media propaganda to take the ‘vaccine’ or lose their livelihood.

The unrestrained actions of Big Pharma bring to mind Lord Acton’s famous dictum:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

* * *

And by the way . . . . .

It might be worth mentioning that in response to doubts about the safety and effectiveness of the Pfizer injections expressed in social media, Reuters have presented ‘rebuttals’ in a series of ‘Fact Checks’. One example of many:

• Fact Check: No evidence that people aged 25-44 experienced an 84% increase in excess mortality due to COVID vaccine rollout

There’s just one problem – Reuters Chairman is a major Pfizer investor and Board Member.

Just thought I’d mention it.