Share this comment
Thanks for your great work on this issue, Toby. As a Finance Professor, a father, a concerned citizen, I believe there cannot be reward without risk. In Finance, there is also rarely any risk without reward. And in Finance, if there is no risk there can be no reward. By freeing them from any legal liability under the EUA, the pharmac…
Thanks for your great work on this issue, Toby. As a Finance Professor, a father, a concerned citizen, I believe there cannot be reward without risk. In Finance, there is also rarely any risk without reward. And in Finance, if there is no risk there can be no reward. By freeing them from any legal liability under the EUA, the pharmaceutical companies have been granted a lucrative risk-free "call option" on the future cashflows of these vaccines, and all future variants of these vaccines. The shareholders of these firms reap all of the upside profit and bear none of the risk. This is un-capitalist, un-American, unethical and unconscionable. My letter to the committee: "If you insist that the pharmaceutical companies must be free from all risk, then please at least have the moral and ethical fortitude to demand that all profits be returned to the risk-bearers (which in this case is the children (US citizens) receiving the shots and their tax-paying families). Better yet, remove the liability shield and go back to Finance 101: there is never reward without risk. This cannot be any different. If they don't want to bear the risk, then get them out of the business and get them away from me and my family."
Well said! 🙌 The absence of a risk reward framework also kills innovation. If the Future Framework is passed there will never be innovation with regards to Covid-19 shots ever again. If literally anything can be approved, why invest in research and development?
Are you implying that you think there ought to be future "vaccines" developed for "Covid-19"? If so, why?
No. I have made it clear that they should be withdrawn from the market. But these things exist now. And the actions of the FDA have removed any incentive to make a good product or to improve the product over time. That's all that I was pointing out.
Do you still roughly adhere to the guiding premise that the FDA is concerned with public health?
Tough question but it's straightforward.
It seems to me that the FDA is transactional. The people there are concerned with keeping their jobs, paying their mortgage, and making more money in the future.
btw, I'm not trying to be prosecutorial. What you are saying is very much in line with Dr. Robert Malone said in an interview with Candace Owens. Referenced here:
https://sagehana.substack.com/p/determining-credibility-2-a-simple?s=w
But any way you slice it. It's corruption.
It's hard, very hard...to realize that evil gets done with regular folks paying the bills.
It's hard because it ultimately implicates all of us. We all have to make trade offs to survive.
So this is what I think about a lot. And all you have to do to cull the herd, if you wanted, say.
Is set up incentive structures.
But if you keep following the incentive structures up the chain in every field, they all connect somewhere in the Black Rock, State Street, Vanguard universe. And if you keep following them, there is some darkness setting up the incentive structures.
Darkness that is about far more than $$$, as they already have more than they can ever spend.
So why? Why set up those incentive structures? Why?
And thus if these goals are in opposition to public health?
And they are.
Then one must conclude that the FDA is not concerned with pubic health, yes?
Any more, say, than the Corporate News is not concerned with presenting a full representation of events.