Backwards rewards — Pfizer versus Moderna COVID vaccines

© 2021 Peter Free

 

09 October 2021

 

 

Does government incentivize profitable failures?

 

Have you noticed that the Biden administration is pushing for Pfizer COVID vaccine boosters?

 

That means yet more money for a vaccine that works noticeably less durably, over at least the roughly annual term, than Moderna's.

 

Meanwhile, Denmark, Sweden and Finland have stopped Moderna mRNA COVID vaccine use in some people:

 

 

Mika Salminen, director of the Finnish health institute, said Finland would instead give Pfizer's vaccine to men born in 1991 and later. Finland offers shots to people aged 12 and over.

 

"A Nordic study involving Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark found that men under the age of 30 who received Moderna Spikevax had a slightly higher risk than others of developing myocarditis," he said.

 

© 2021 Essi Lehto, Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine, Reuters (07 October 2021)

 

 

Reuters explains the disparities in reasoning among nations (with reference to the alleged myocarditis problem), here:

 

 

Antonis Triantafyllou, Anna Pruchnicka and Tomasz Janowski, Countries respond to heart inflammation risk from mRNA shots, Reuters (08 October 2021)

 

 

In sum

 

Some public health authorities will be substituting a vaccine that markedly wanes in its antibody-based protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection across just a few months— perhaps because its dosing is very much less — than Moderna's vaccine — which performs more durably.

 

All this because we (allegedly advanced) cultures are afraid of even minimal risk.

 

 

This curiously unreasoned reasoning might be defensible if . . .

 

. . . young healthy folk really needed to be vaccinated.

 

That remains a question because no one has really investigated the matter.

 

Guess why that is.

 

 

The moral? — Getting things (profitably) backwards is what the World Establishment does

 

This is why propaganda runs nonstop.

 

Otherwise, the Rabble might notice that the situations that we are tossed into, are — on-purpose profitably — screwed up.

 

In the mRNA vaccine competition, the less effective vaccine is raking in the most money. And that looks to continue, across the foreseeable future. Even against substantial evidence that its main competitor is very probably more effective.

 

Does Pfizer's big corporation lobbying (meaning bribing) power play a role in this?

 

And do you think that being able to lead sheep around by their noses on a sub-annual, time-based agenda appeals to Government?

 

The key concept?

 

Follow incentives.