# Stuff and Things > COVID & VACCINES >  Pfizers Unconscionable Crimes, Past and Present | Mercola.com

## phoenyx

Just came out yesterday on Mercola.com...

**
Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola   Fact Checked


[video: A conversation with Pfizer Chairman and Executive Officer Albert Bourla]

*STORY AT-A-GLANCE*



In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe, Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed a small part of professionals intentionally circulate misinformation ... so that they will mislead those that have concerns. Such medical professionals are not just bad people, Bourla said, theyre criminals, because they have literally cost millions of livesThe criminals playbook includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty ofPfizer has a long history of criminal activity. The company has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices, bribery in multiple countries, environmental violations  including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste  labor and worker safety violations and more. Its also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsyBetween 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behaviorAccording to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizers Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified, patients were unblinded and follow-up on reported side effects lagged way behind

In a November 9, 2021, interview with Atlantic Council CEO Frederick Kempe,1 Pfizer chairman and CEO Albert Bourla claimed a small part of professionals intentionally circulate misinformation ... so that they will mislead those that have concerns.2

Such medical professionals, Bourla said, are not just bad people, theyre criminals, because they have literally cost millions of lives. Bourla is one to talk, being the CEO of a company the name of which is synonymous with corporate crime.

Bourlas comments were made on the same day Pfizer and its partner BioNTech asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to broaden its authorization for booster shots to everyone over the age of 18.3

*Pot Calling the Kettle Black*


I guess we cant be too surprised, though, as the primary defense strategy people like Bourla have is to blame the opposition for their own misdeeds. He even claims the company is being targeted by dark organizations, meaning organizations that arent transparent about their funding.

This is precisely what the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) is, the fabrications4 of which are being used to prop up the official narrative that those who present evidence showing the COVID shots are dangerous are domestic terrorists5 out to worsen the pandemic death toll.

No one knows who funds this group, but it has plenty of connections to war hawks and Great Reset promoters  including the Atlantic Council, to which Bourla is making these statements.

By way of its board members, the CCDH can be linked to the Trilateral Commission, the Atlantic Council, the European Council of Foreign Relations, Save the Children Fund (funded by the Gates Foundation and a partner of Gates GAVI Vaccine Alliance), the British Parliament, CIA and Event 201,6,7 Microsoft,8 and the Center for American Progress9 (another organization funded by dark money10).

And Bourla wants us to believe Pfizer is under attack from dark money groups? Again, the playbook of these wolves includes the dictum to always blame the other side for what they themselves are guilty of.

*More on the Atlantic Council*


In August 2018, Facebook claimed an influence campaign by Russian bad actors had been carried out on its platform leading up to the 2018 midterm elections. However, it turned out these pages werent identified by Facebook. They came primarily from the Atlantic Councils Digital Forensic Research Lab.

In her article, Hysteria Over Newly Revealed Facebook Influence Campaign Doesnt Fit the Facts,11 investigative reporter Whitney Webb took a deep-dive into this inane propaganda effort, pointing out that:


_... despite the lawmakers claims, Facebook has established no links to the Russian government or even Russian nationals._

_The only evidence to back up the claim of Russian-involvement is that one of the pages identified had an IRA [Internet Research Agency, a Russian troll farm named in a Mueller-probe indictment] account as one of its admins for only seven minutes and one of the IRA accounts we disabled in 2017 shared a Facebook Event hosted by one of the pages._

_Beyond the fact that accusations of Russian involvement are highly politicized given the lack of current evidence, there is hardly any indication that this influence campaign was even influential at all._

_Indeed, most of the bad actor pages and accounts had hardly any followers, with most of them having no followers. For instance, only four of the 32 total social-media pages and accounts had more than 10 followers, with all other pages  i.e., the remaining 28  having between 10 and zero, according to Facebooks statements._

_All of the Instagram accounts identified had zero followers and, among those seven accounts, only one of them had made a single post on the platform. By Facebooks own admission, only four of the pages named were even remotely significant in terms of followers and thus influence._
Why do I mention this? Because this is the same tactic used to frame a small number of individuals with limited social media reach as domestic terrorists, simply for sharing counter-narratives about the COVID pandemic.

*False Allegations Used to Quench Freedom of Speech*


According to the CCDH,12 a dozen individuals, including me, were responsible for 65% of all anti-vaccine content on social media and should therefore be banned from all platforms. Most social media companies have since complied, deplatforming most of us. This despite a public denouncement of the CCDHs accusations by Monika Bickert, vice president of Facebook content policy, who stated that:13


_ these 12 people are responsible for about just 0.05% of all views of vaccine-related content on Facebook. This includes all vaccine-related posts theyve shared, whether true or false, as well as URLs associated with these people._

_The report14 upon which the faulty narrative is based analyzed only a narrow set of 483 pieces of content over six weeks from only 30 groups, some of which are as small as 2,500 users._

_They are in no way representative of the hundreds of millions of posts that people have shared about COVID-19 vaccines in the past months on Facebook._

_Further, there is no explanation for how the organization behind the report identified the content they describe as anti-vax or how they chose the 30 groups they included in their analysis. There is no justification for their claim that their data constitute a representative sample of the content shared across our apps._*
Information Warfare*


Getting back to the Atlantic Council, Webb noted that:15


_Facebook officially partnered with the Atlantic Council this past May in order to tackle so-called fake news, adding that the hawkish think-tank would serve as its eyes and ears in identifying alleged foreign-influence operations ..._

_The Atlantic Council itself is led by a mix of retired military officers, former politicians, and Western business elites. And the think-tanks financial sponsors include top U.S. defense contractors; agencies aligned with Washington and the Pentagon; the United Arab Emirates; major transnational corporations; and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)._

_One can think of several reasons why such a group would be interested in fomenting anti-Russian hysteria ... The Atlantic Councils conflicts of interest are certainly worth keeping in mind ..._
The same must be said about the CCDH, and Pfizer too. Both are glaringly biased and in no position to judge what is misinformation and what isnt. But then, this is war, after all. Were in an information war, and the term misinformation is lobbed in lieu of grenades. Discernment and some basic wisdom is required to avoid becoming a victim.

Fact checking organizations are another weapon designed and deployed to control the narrative. They exist as gatekeepers to funnel readers and viewers to the official narrative and away from anything that might raise inconvenient questions. The largest and most influential fact checker is NewsGuard, which hands out trustworthiness ratings to websites.

NewsGuard cofounder Louis Crovitz is a member of the Council on Foreign relations  another Great Reset supporter  and primary advisers include Tom Ridge, former secretary of Homeland Security, and Ret. Gen. Michael Hayden, a former director of both the CIA and NSA.16

Knowing that, it makes it easier to understand how everyday people who share information that veers from the official narrative can be labeled and treated as a national security threat.

The COVID pandemic is a militarized operation. Were at war, and the designated enemy (looking at it from the side that started this war without telling anyone) are the citizens of the world who want to hold on to their freedom and human rights.
*
Pfizer Has a Long History of Criminal Behavior*




Pfizer is on the other side  the side that is seeking to install an unelected technocratic regime based on the idea that we need a global biosecurity, biosurveillance apparatus or well all die.

This is not a new position for them. During the American Civil War, which began in 1862, the need for massive amounts of painkillers and antiseptics allowed Pfizer to flourish and expand during wartime.17 Today, the manufactured need for COVID-19 vaccine is allowing Pfizer to make out like a bandit yet again, and as Ive already stated, we are again at war, albeit an undeclared one.

To achieve that, Pfizer is willing to blackmail countries into accepting its COVID shot terms, as reviewed in the Gravitas report above  terms that make sure Pfizer always comes out on top.

A key term is no liability, which is understandable considering the amount of harm Pfizers COVID jab is causing. Pfizer went so far as to bully nations into putting up sovereign assets like military bases as collateral to pay for any vaccine injury lawsuits that might result from their COVID jab.

While that might not be illegal, its unethical, and so is researching on people without informed consent. Everyone who gets these emergency use authorized injections are part of that research, while simultaneously being prevented from seeing anything but propaganda.

Without truthful and transparent disclosure of both risks and benefits, there is no informed consent. Pfizer is even experimenting on children and pregnant women without informed consent, two categories that historically have been off-limits for drug experimentation.

*Whistleblower Claims Data Were Falsified*


According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizers Phase 3 COVID jab trial in the fall of 2020, data were falsified and patients were unblinded. Follow-up on reported side effects also lagged behind.18 This isnt the first time such unsavory have been levied against Pfizer.



In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.

Whats more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasnt set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.

State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21
*
An Habitual Offender*


In his 2010 paper,22 Tough on Crime? Pfizer and the CIHR, Robert G. Evans, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor at Vancouver School of Economics, described Pfizer as a habitual offender, persistently engaging in illegal and corrupt marketing practices, bribing physicians and suppressing adverse trial results.

Pfizer has been sued in multiple venues over unethical drug testing, illegal marketing practices,23 bribery in multiple countries,24 environmental violations  including illegal dumping of PCBs and other toxic waste25  labor and worker safety violations and more.26,27,28 Its also been criticized for price gouging that threatens the lives of patients with chronic diseases such as epilepsy.29

Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.

According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32


_A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34

None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, theyre tiny when compared to the companys profits.

Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35

As noted by the law firm Matthews and Associates, the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled COVID vaccine.36 The key strategy to boost confidence, unfortunately, is censorship.

*What New Way of Life Is Pfizer Promising?*


The fastest way to get back to normal, Bourla claims in his Atlantic Council interview, is for everyone to get vaccinated. Considering how little things have changed despite massive vaccination rates, it seems clear the globalists in charge of The Great Reset  and Pfizer is part of that pack  have no intention of allowing anything go back to normal. It wont matter how many comply, or how many times we comply

Australia is perhaps the clearest illustration of what the whole world will face. Even though a majority are vaccinated, their freedoms have not been returned, and now they have to submit to boosters or lose what semblance of freedom the initial round of shots gave them. The Australian government is confiscating and blocking peoples bank accounts, withholding unemployment benefits and more  all in the name of public health.

Bourla even indicates that there is no going back to the old normal when he states, The only thing that stands between the new way of life and the current way of life is ... hesitancy to vaccinations.

New way of life. What does this new way of life look like? It looks like Australia. It looks like Israel. It looks like Lithuania,37 where your right to frequent restaurants, stores, shopping malls, beauty salons, libraries, banks, insurance agencies and universities, and your right to inpatient medical care and travel, all depend on your willingness to participate in a medical experiment that can kill or disable you.

The new way of life Bourla is talking about involves repeatedly playing lethal Russian Roulette just to earn the right to be part of society. No thank you. Bourla can keep his new way of life.
Sources and References



1 Facebook Atlantic Council November 9, 20212 Washington Post November 9, 20213 Washington Post November 9, 2021 Live Update4, 12, 14 CCDH, The Disinformation Dozen5 The Defender December 2, 20216 Eurasia Review May 21, 20217 Event 2018 Computerworld September 14, 20079 Center for American Progress Simon Clark10 New York Times May 3, 2021 (Archived)11, 15 Mint Press News August 2, 201813 Facebook August 18, 202116 We Are Change May 15, 202017 Pharmaphoroum Pfizer History18 The BMJ 2021; 375:n263519 The Independent March 23, 201420 The Atlantic December 27, 201021, 25, 27, 36 Corporate Research Project February 3, 201722 Healthcare Policy 2010 May;5(4):16-2523 SGT Report January 7, 202124 CorpWatch August 8, 201226 Corporate Research Project Pfizer28 Matthews & Associates Pfizer Rap Sheet29, 32, 35 Global Justice, The Horrible History of Big Pharma30 ProPublica Big Pharmas Big Fines31 CNN April 2, 201033 DOJ October 21, 201134 Reuters August 6, 201437 Twitter Gluboco Lietuva October 7, 2021
**

Source (removed 48 hours after publication):
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...e-history.aspx

----------

teeceetx (12-05-2021),usfan (12-05-2021),WarriorRob (12-05-2021),WhoKnows (12-05-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

How many actual crimes vs minor regulatory violations has Pfizer been found guilty of?

Cite the court cases please.

----------


## Wildrose

> According to a whistleblower who worked on Pfizer’s Phase 3 COVID jab trial


When an author uses this kind of language they've given up any pretext of credibility or objectivity.

----------


## teeceetx

> When an author uses this kind of language they've given up any pretext of credibility or objectivity.


... you own Pfizer stock?

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021),WhoKnows (12-05-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> How many actual crimes vs minor regulatory violations has Pfizer been found guilty of?
> 
> Cite the court cases please.


How about you actually READ the OP. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

From the OP:

"In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.

What’s more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasn’t set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.

State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents’ lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21"

----------

phoenyx (12-05-2021),WarriorRob (12-05-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> How many actual crimes vs minor regulatory violations has Pfizer been found guilty of?



I'm not sure. You're welcome to try to find out. The article mentions the total amount of criminal conviction fines in the "story at a glance" portion of the article:
**

Between 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behavior
**

But I think the truly heart breaking stuff is in the body of the article, such as the quote that WhoKnows produced in post #6.

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021),WhoKnows (12-05-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by Wildrose
> 
> 
> How many actual crimes vs minor regulatory violations has Pfizer been found guilty of?
> 
> Cite the court cases please.
> 
> 
> 
> How about you actually READ the OP. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


Technically, the OP doesn't mention the precise amount of crimes Pfizer has been found guilty of, much less the amount of "minor regulatory violations". As I mentioned to Wildrose, he's welcome to try to find the answers himself. What the article -does- mention is a lot of immoral and criminal things that Pfizer has done, with no signs that I could see that they are changing their ways.

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Technically, the OP doesn't mention the precise amount of crimes Pfizer has been found guilty of, much less the amount of "minor regulatory violations". As I mentioned to Wildrose, he's welcome to try to find the answers himself. What the article -does- mention is a lot of immoral and criminal things that Pfizer has done, with no signs that I could see that they are changing their ways.


It clearly states in the article that there were crimes and the fines imposed. He's just being himself. And not actually reading anything.

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021)

----------


## WarriorRob

Those millions Vaccinated have no clue about this, just wonder if this was revealed before they took the Jab, would millions still lineup to take it :Thinking:  Good thread :Thumbsup20:

----------

phoenyx (12-05-2021),usfan (12-06-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Technically, the OP doesn't mention the precise amount of crimes Pfizer has been found guilty of, much less the amount of "minor regulatory violations". As I mentioned to Wildrose, he's welcome to try to find the answers himself. What the article -does- mention is a lot of immoral and criminal things that Pfizer has done, with no signs that I could see that they are changing their ways.
> 
> 
> 
> It clearly states in the article that there were crimes and the fines imposed.


Agreed. -However-, Wildrose never said that Pfizer hadn't been fined or been convicted of crimes. He had asked for the -number- of crimes vs. "minor regulatory violations" they had had. I told him that he's welcome to look into the matter himself- I don't personally consider it worth my time. For me, the article was a good expose of the type of company Pfizer is.

----------

WhoKnows (12-05-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Those millions Vaccinated have no clue about this, just wonder if this was revealed before they took the Jab, would millions still lineup to take it Good thread


Some who have been vaccinated now regret their decision. It's too bad they can't go back and time and reverse it.

----------

WarriorRob (12-05-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> Agreed. -However-, Wildrose never said that Pfizer hadn't been fined or been convicted of crimes. He had asked for the -number- of crimes vs. "minor regulatory violations" they had had. I told him that he's welcome to look into the matter himself- I don't personally consider it worth my time. For me, the article was a good expose of the type of company Pfizer is.


I understand. That being said, he's just splitting hairs. AGAIN. 

Had he read the actual article, he would not have asked such an idiotic question. He didn't read the article. He read the headline and jumped to conclusions.

----------


## usfan

Follow the money.  And now, the left has given Pfizer a blank check, from the taxpayers, and a get out of jail free, card.  No suits. No accountability.  Just profits.

----------


## Wildrose

> How about you actually READ the OP. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


You should take your own advice, it's not in the article jackass.

----------


## Wildrose

> Agreed. -However-, Wildrose never said that Pfizer hadn't been fined or been convicted of crimes. He had asked for the -number- of crimes vs. "minor regulatory violations" they had had. I told him that he's welcome to look into the matter himself- I don't personally consider it worth my time. For me, the article was a good expose of the type of company Pfizer is.


The problem is the OP title really doesn't match up to the article.

What actual crimes have they been convicted of and what makes those crimes "Unconscionable".

----------


## Wildrose

> I understand. That being said, he's just splitting hairs. AGAIN. 
> 
> Had he read the actual article, he would not have asked such an idiotic question. He didn't read the article. He read the headline and jumped to conclusions.


The answers are not in the article, try reading the damned thing.

----------


## WhoKnows

> The answers are not in the article, try reading the damned thing.


We quoted the passages from the actual article. 

READ MORE. WRITE LESS.

----------


## Wildrose

> Agreed. -However-, Wildrose never said that Pfizer hadn't been fined or been convicted of crimes. He had asked for the -number- of crimes vs. "minor regulatory violations" they had had. I told him that he's welcome to look into the matter himself- I don't personally consider it worth my time. For me, the article was a good expose of the type of company Pfizer is.


*Pfizer’s Unconscionable Crimes, Past and Present | Mercola.com*



Again, it's your assertion that they've been convicted of Unconscionable Crimes.  It's up to you to show that to be true with examples.

Ranting and accusations absent fact don't go very far with educated people.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Again, it's your assertion that they've been convicted of just horrible crimes.  It's up to you to show that to be true with examples.
> 
> Ranting and accusations absent fact don't go very far with educated people.


LMAO...Imma just leave this here...from the passage in the OP...

*Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.*

----------


## Wildrose

> LMAO...Imma just leave this here...from the passage in the OP...
> 
> *Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.*


Name the cases.  What were the "Unconscionable Crimes"?  If they were "unconscionable" why are the still able to do business anywhere in the free world?

----------


## WhoKnows

> Name the cases.  What were the "Unconscionable Crimes"?  If they were "unconscionable" why are the still able to do business anywhere in the free world?


 :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## Wildrose

> 


Accusations and unsupported assertions don't make for a compelling case beyond maybe the 3rd grade.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Accusations and unsupported assertions don't make for a compelling case beyond maybe the 3rd grade.


READ MORE. WRITE LESS.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Wildrose

> READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


Stay in your lane and on topic or go troll elsewhere.  The adults are trying to have a discussion.

----------


## Trinnity

> You should take your own advice, it's not in the article* jackass.*


 :Nono:  *Keep it civil.*

----------


## Wildrose

> *Keep it civil.*


I was till someone came trolling.

----------


## Wildrose

> ... you own Pfizer stock?


Are you sitting on your head?

----------


## Wildrose

> I'm not sure. You're welcome to try to find out. The article mentions the total amount of criminal conviction fines in the "story at a glance" portion of the article:
> **
> 
> Between 2002 and 2010, Pfizer was fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards, including a $2.3 billion fine in 2009, the then-largest health care fraud fine in American history. In 2011, Pfizer paid $14.5 million to settle charges of illegal marketing, and in 2014 they settled charges relating to unlawful marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million. None of it deterred future bad behavior
> **
> 
> But I think the truly heart breaking stuff is in the body of the article, such as the quote that WhoKnows produced in post #6.


You claim they have been found guilty of "Unconscionable Crimes", it's up to you to show those convictions, not me.

A list of unsupported allegations is nothing but a list of unsupported allegations.

----------


## Wildrose

> ... you own Pfizer stock?


Are you smoking crack?

----------


## Wildrose

> From the OP:
> 
> "In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
> 
> For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.
> 
> Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.
> 
> The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.
> ...


Long on accusations, short on facts.  What a shock.

----------


## Wildrose

> I understand. That being said, he's just splitting hairs. AGAIN. 
> 
> Had he read the actual article, he would not have asked such an idiotic question. He didn't read the article. He read the headline and jumped to conclusions.


The idiot is yourself since my questions are not answered in the article.

----------


## Wildrose

> LMAO...Imma just leave this here...from the passage in the OP...
> 
> *Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards.*


Cite the cases wherein thee were criminal convictions.

----------


## phoenyx

> I understand. That being said, he's just splitting hairs. AGAIN. 
> 
> Had he read the actual article, he would not have asked such an idiotic question. He didn't read the article. He read the headline and jumped to conclusions.


I suspect that you're right about him not reading the article, at least not the entire thing. But I didn't mind the question- it speaks to his viewpoint, which clearly differs from ours here. For a long time, I've tracked who responds to my posts and I notice that ultimately, without some type of difference of opinion, I'd get very few responses. And there's no question that Wildrose responds to me way more than anyone else. It also prepares me for viewpoints that aren't my own. My father's views regarding vaccines are probably in line with Wildrose's actually, but in contrast to Wildrose, my father has little interest in discussing our different beliefs on this.

----------


## Wildrose

> I suspect that you're right about him not reading the article, at least not the entire thing. But I didn't mind the question- it speaks to his viewpoint, which clearly differs from ours here. For a long time, I've tracked who responds to my posts and I notice that ultimately, without some type of difference of opinion, I'd get very few responses. And there's no question that Wildrose responds to me way more than anyone else. It also prepares me for viewpoints that aren't my own. My father's views regarding vaccines are probably in line with Wildrose's actually, but in contrast to Wildrose, my father has little interest in discussing our different beliefs on this.


My viewpoint is one of asking you to support your histrionic assertion with facts.  Not more allegations from the same or other sources, facts.

Please cite the cases in which there were criminal convictions.

----------


## phoenyx

> The problem is the OP title really doesn't match up to the article.



I disagree.




> What actual crimes have they been convicted of and what makes those crimes "Unconscionable".


I believe WhoKnows had perhaps the best quote for that one in post #6. Not sure if you'd go back and read it, so I'll just quote it one more time:

**
"In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.

For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.

Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.

Whats more, while Pfizer produced a permission letter from a Nigerian ethics committee, the letter turned out to have been backdated. The ethics committee itself wasnt set up until a year after the trial had already taken place.

State Department cables also revealed Pfizer hired spies with a plan to frame a Nigerian attorney general and get him to drop the parents lawsuit.20 Pfizer even tried to avoid responsibility by falsely accusing Doctors Without Borders of dispensing the experimental drug.21"
**

----------


## phoenyx

> *Pfizers Unconscionable Crimes, Past and Present | Mercola.com*
> 
> Again, it's your assertion that they've been convicted of Unconscionable Crimes.



I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:

**
Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.

According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32


_A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34

None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, theyre tiny when compared to the companys profits.

Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35
**

----------


## Wildrose

> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe WhoKnows had perhaps the best quote for that one in post #6. Not sure if you'd go back and read it, so I'll just quote it one more time:
> 
> **
> "In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
> 
> ...


The facts of which remain in dispute and there was no criminal conviction.

They settled the claims and paid off the lawyers and families.

This was also a case from 1996. How many of those involved with this trial or in management are even still with the company.

The big one, resulting in the 2.3bn dollar fine was a regulatory violation.

They got in a pissing contest with the FDA because they marketed a drug which was legal for several off label uses for those uses, and it was technically illegal because the way the regulation is written you can only advertise a drug to treat only conditions listed on the label.

Now if it's legal for use just what the hell is wrong with advertising it for those uses.

Again, there was nothing "unconscionable" about it.

Even in the case of the five deaths, kids die in trials every day.  Unfortunately that cannot be avoided.

As for any actual wrongdoing again no criminal conviction and disputed facts and resolved with a settlement.

If we're going to shut down every drug company that ever loses patients in trials we're going to soon be out of drugs.  The simple fact is, not everyone can be saved.

----------


## Wildrose

> In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34


This was a liability Pfizer inherited when it bought out Wyeth Pharmaceuticals.  Wyeth produced Rapamune.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wyeth...une-unapproved

Pfizer to Acquire Wyeth, Creating the Worlds Premier Biopharmaceutical Company | Pfizer

----------


## Wildrose

> I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:
> 
> **
> Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
> 
> According to the Global Justice report, “The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Can’t Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:”32
> 
> 
> _“A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. ‘At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,’ he stated.”_
> ...


It's your thread title. It's up to you to support it especially since it's the premise for the entire thread.

That means sometimes you have to go somewhere to look for facts because Mercola is long on accusation and short on fact as a normal way of conducting business.

They use big headlines and bomb throwing histrionic language to hook in the gullible and keep their click counters spinning.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



First of all, Mercola.com stated that they did unconscionable crimes and that Pfizer had been fined $3 billion "in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards". They did not specify whether they considered any of those lawsuit were for unconscionable crimes or whether they believe that Pfizer was not convicted of said unconscionable crimes. Second of all, the article itself provides plenty of evidence that they are guilty of unconscionable crimes regardless of whether they were convicted for them. I still think the most obvious one is one that WhoKnows quoted in his post #6.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I believe WhoKnows had perhaps the best quote for that one in post #6. Not sure if you'd go back and read it, so I'll just quote it one more time:
> 
> **
> "In 2014, Pfizer was ordered to pay $75 million to settle charges relating to its unlawful testing of a new broad spectrum antibiotic on critically ill Nigerian children. As reported by the Independent19 at the time, Pfizer sent a team of doctors into Nigeria in the midst of a meningitis epidemic.
> 
> For two weeks, the team set up right next to a medical station run by Doctors Without Borders and began dispensing the experimental drug, Trovan. Of the 200 children picked, half got the experimental drug and the other half the already licensed antibiotic Rocephin.
> ...



Do you really think they'd pay $75 million dollars if they were innocent?




> They settled the claims and paid off the lawyers and families.



I imagine they wrote the whole thing off as a business expense.




> This was also a case from 1996. How many of those involved with this trial or in management are even still with the company.



A good question. Do you know the answer?




> The big one, resulting in the 2.3bn dollar fine was a regulatory violation.
> 
> They got in a pissing contest with the FDA because they marketed a drug which was legal for several off label uses for those uses, and it was technically illegal because the way the regulation is written you can only advertise a drug to treat only conditions listed on the label.
> Now if it's legal for use just what the hell is wrong with advertising it for those uses.



As if that was the only thing going on there. From the article:
**
*Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.

According to the Global Justice report, “The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Can’t Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:”32

“A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. ‘At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,’ he stated.”

In 2011, Pfizer agreed to pay another $14.5 million to settle federal charges of illegal marketing,33 and in 2014 they settled federal charges relating to improper marketing of the kidney transplant drug Rapamune to the tune of $35 million.34
None of those legal actions deterred future bad behavior. To Pfizer, paying fines to sweep illegalities under the rug has become part of the cost of doing business, and they can afford it. While the fines may sound extraordinary, they’re tiny when compared to the company’s profits.
Pfizer was among the top 30 most profitable companies in the world in 2020, with profits reaching $16 billion, and its COVID jab alone is predicted to make $13 billion in 2021.35

As noted by the law firm Matthews and Associates, “the history of Pfizer is rife with so much subterfuge and under-the-table dealing that the company will need all the help it can get to promote confidence in its hastily assembled COVID vaccine.”36* 
**

----------


## phoenyx

> It's your thread title.



True.




> It's up to you to support it especially since it's the premise for the entire thread.



I have.




> That means sometimes you have to go somewhere to look for facts because Mercola is long on accusation and short on fact as a normal way of conducting business.



Unsubstantiated assertion.

----------


## WhoKnows

"Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

----------

phoenyx (12-06-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

"The state of Kano and the Nigerian federal government filed criminal and civil lawsuits against Pfizer in 2007. Two years later, the company agreed to pay $75 million to the state and relatives of children who died or were disabled during the trial."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/20/nigeria-pfizer-kano-coronavirus-trovan/

----------

phoenyx (12-06-2021)

----------


## Canadianeye

There are layers and levels of information, disinformation and disseminating that information and disinformation for gain. There are literally millions of grassroots people who understand this and apply the disseminating information and disinformation for gain - specifically gain against the authoritarians thugs and their toadies.

The technique is simple and very effective, and, there is an endless stream of content.

I'll give a brief example, involving the same CEO from this thread. He was apparently arrested by the FBI a while back. This of course is not true, but the stories of his arrest were peddled far and wide anyways...along with other Pfizer actual facts. Facts about what they have been found guilty of. Facts about their ethics. Facts about their indifference about people vs their monetary bottom line.

That produces several things at that point.

1. The "whopper" garners the attention, and the _other_ facts regarding Pfizer is further introduced on the alternative medias.

2. The MSM often respond, and, while viciously attacking the whopper - end up mentioning those other extremely negative Pfizer facts, because basically they must since they can't ignore them from the original piece being distributed. The left and the right MSMS must mention these things, while discrediting the whopper.

3. The grassroots people know what to do with the information and disinformation. It is a very easy transition during a conversation to start getting the person you are speaking with - to acknowledge the unethical, bottom line money agenda of Pfizer. It is easy to talk about what we don't know about all those hush money arraignments Pfizer has done over the decades. It is easy to bring in a conversation about how these alternative sites are more prominent because of the censorship partnership between Big Pharma and the MSMs - which - most people acknowledge immediately.

It's a war of us vs them. Free people vs authoritarians...and the authoritarians are *furious* at the dissemination of _actual facts_ regarding them and their Big Pharma and Big Tech partners - by a well orchestrated resistance.

Their state of furious leads to further blatant and now at times unbridled violent expression of their authoritarianism, which, plays into the hands with further ammunition to the orchestrated resistance.

They are being exposed, with the different tools in our toolbox - so that is how we will win this war, and, because they are authoritarians - they can't stop it.

I could care less who this offends or doesn't offend. That is just a battle, and I want my side to win the war.

----------

phoenyx (12-06-2021),usfan (12-06-2021),WhoKnows (12-06-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, as I haver painstakingly just demonstrated he is long on accusation and short on anything resembling facts substantiating his accusations and unsupported assertions.

----------


## Wildrose

> "The state of Kano and the Nigerian federal government filed criminal and civil lawsuits against Pfizer in 2007. Two years later, the company agreed to pay $75 million to the state and relatives of children who died or were disabled during the trial."
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/03/20/nigeria-pfizer-kano-coronavirus-trovan/


"Filed" is not a conviction.  The case was settled for cash and the facts remained in dispute.

----------


## Wildrose

> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


No, none of these is unsubstantiated, I provided you the data for each of them.  If you don't understand what unsubstantiated means you probably should avoid the use of the word.

----------


## Wildrose

> Do you really think they'd pay $75 million dollars if they were innocent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine they wrote the whole thing off as a business expense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, because in many cases it's easier and cheaper in the long run even if there is no actual fault on your part.

As for the rest that's already been addressed separately.  As for the Whistleblower, "Whistleblowers" make lots of claims they can't provide substantiation for.  That's pretty common particularly with disgruntled employees former employees looking for revenge.

----------


## Wildrose

> "Pharmacia & Upjohn Company has agreed to plead guilty to a felony violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act for misbranding Bextra with the intent to defraud or mislead."
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history


What does Upjon have to do with Pfizer?

----------


## Wildrose

> I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:
> 
> **
> Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
> 
> According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32
> 
> 
> _A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
> ...


Read your thread title again.  I asked for a list of cases in which they were actually convicted of crimes and what exactly constitutes, "Unconscionable Crimes".

Long on accusation, innuendo, and histrionics, damned short on facts that support the claim.

----------


## Wildrose

> I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:
> 
> **
> Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
> 
> According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32
> 
> 
> _A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
> ...


These have already been addressed one by one, why are you repeating them as though they haven't?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> True.
> I have.
> 
> Unsubstantiated assertion.
> 
> 
> ...


I strongly disagree.

----------


## Wildrose

> True.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You have failed to list cases of criminal convictions and failed to explain what constitutes, "Unconscionable Crimes".

Again, histrionics short on fact.

----------


## Wildrose

> I strongly disagree.


Of course you do because as I have said, you refuse to accept facts in favor of conspiracy theories.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> True.
> I have.
> Unsubstantiated assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> No, none of these is unsubstantiated, I provided you the data for each of them.


Again, I strongly disagree.

----------


## Wildrose

> Again, I strongly disagree.


Then you're simply being dishonest now because I provided it including the links.

----------


## Wildrose

Let's try this again. SIDS and unexplained deaths for the last thirty years.

Data and Statistics for SIDS and SUID | CDC

More babies getting more vaccines is producing a lower rate of such deaths actually. Can we say vaccines then are reducing the number of SIDS deaths?

----------


## WhoKnows

> What does Upjon have to do with Pfizer?


Once AGAIN. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## WhoKnows

> "Filed" is not a conviction.  The case was settled for cash and the facts remained in dispute.


Annnnnnd one more time. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


Did you even read what was quoted? This is no fly by night case. There are 3 references in the material quoted above. The first leads to an article by The Independent, published in 2009. Like Mercola.com, you need to sign up for a free account to see it, but that's not a paywall, so I did so. Quoting from the introduction of said article:
**
*A divorce case was all that passed for excitement at Richard P Altschuler's "kinda small" lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut, when the phone rang nine years ago. On the other end of the line, a world away in the heat of Nigeria, was Etigwe Uwo, a young lawyer with "an incredible story about Pfizer". The Lagos attorney was going to take on the largest pharmaceutical company in the world in an unprecedented class action pitting African parents against an American corporate giant. And he needed help.*
*
Mr Etigwe had chosen Mr Altschuler because, back in 1979, the Connecticut lawyer had successfully defended a friend of the Nigerian. The unlikely pair were about to embark on a marathon journey into the world of "big pharma". Nine years on and their efforts have finally been rewarded with a reported $75m (£50m) settlement, the terms of which are likely to be released this week.*

*
If it sounds like the script of a Hollywood blockbuster that's because it was this story that prompted John Le Carre to write The Constant Gardener, according to Mr Altschuler.*
**

Full article:
Pfizer to pay 50m pounds after deaths of Nigerian children in drug trial experiment | The Independent | The Independent

I actually still haven't seen The Constant Gardiner, but it's now high on my list. For those who'd like to see the trailer:

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:
> 
> **
> Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
> 
> According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32
> ...



Why?





> I asked for a list of cases in which they were actually convicted of crimes and what exactly constitutes, "Unconscionable Crimes".



I think you're focusing too much on specific terms, not enough on the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. 
Sure, $3 billion dollars may simply be considered a business expense for a corporate giant like Pfizer, but based on what Mercola's article reveals, I believe they were let off far too easily. I think a criminal corporation like Pfizer should have been shut down long ago. Some choice quotes from the article:

**
*A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated.*
**


And who can forget this one:
**
*Eleven of the children treated by the Pfizer team died, and many others suffered side effects such as brain damage and organ failure. Pfizer denied wrongdoing. According to the company, only five of the children given Trovan died, compared to six who received Rocephin, so their drug was not to blame.

The problem was they never told the parents that their children were being given an experimental drug, let alone ask them if they wanted their child to take part in the trial.*
**

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I actually never said they'd definitely been convicted of crimes, though I seriously doubt that Mercola.com got it wrong. I'll just leave you with this quote from the article:
> 
> **
> Between 2002 and 2010 alone, Pfizer and its subsidiaries were fined $3 billion in criminal convictions, civil penalties and jury awards. This included $2.3 billion for the illegal marketing of the arthritis drug, Bextra, levied in 2009.30,31 It was the largest health care fraud settlement in American history.
> 
> According to the Global Justice report, The Horrible History of Big Pharma: Why We Cant Leave Pharmaceutical Corporations in the Driving Seat of the COVID-19 Response:32
> ...



Can you elaborate on how they have been "addressed"?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I strongly disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you do because as I have said, you refuse to accept facts in favor of conspiracy theories.


Another unsubstantiated assertion.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



Links aren't proof of anything.

----------


## Wildrose

> Do you really think they'd pay $75 million dollars if they were innocent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I imagine they wrote the whole thing off as a business expense.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You failed of course to answer the questions I asked.  Care to try again?

----------


## Wildrose

> Links aren't proof of anything.


Links take you to the sources of the data.

----------


## Wildrose

> Once AGAIN. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


Learn how to give a straight answer instead of continuing the inane trolling.

Your Upjon citation has absolutely nothing to do with Pfizer, Covid, or vaccinations.

----------


## Wildrose

> Annnnnnd one more time. READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


Learn to answer the questions posed and stay on topic and troll less.

----------


## Wildrose

> Did you even read what was quoted? This is no fly by night case. There are 3 references in the material quoted above. The first leads to an article by The Independent, published in 2009. Like Mercola.com, you need to sign up for a free account to see it, but that's not a paywall, so I did so. Quoting from the introduction of said article:
> **
> *A divorce case was all that passed for excitement at Richard P Altschuler's "kinda small" lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut, when the phone rang nine years ago. On the other end of the line, a world away in the heat of Nigeria, was Etigwe Uwo, a young lawyer with "an incredible story about Pfizer". The Lagos attorney was going to take on the largest pharmaceutical company in the world in an unprecedented class action pitting African parents against an American corporate giant. And he needed help.*
> *
> Mr Etigwe had chosen Mr Altschuler because, back in 1979, the Connecticut lawyer had successfully defended a friend of the Nigerian. The unlikely pair were about to embark on a marathon journey into the world of "big pharma". Nine years on and their efforts have finally been rewarded with a reported $75m (£50m) settlement, the terms of which are likely to be released this week.*
> 
> *
> If it sounds like the script of a Hollywood blockbuster that's because it was this story that prompted John Le Carre to write The Constant Gardener, according to Mr Altschuler.*
> **
> ...


So what?  There were no convictions and the case was settled for cash most of which probably ended up in the lawyers pockets.

----------


## Wildrose

> Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're focusing too much on specific terms, not enough on the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. 
> Sure, $3 billion dollars may simply be considered a business expense for a corporate giant like Pfizer, but based on what Mercola's article reveals, I believe they were let off far too easily. I think a criminal corporation like Pfizer should have been shut down long ago. Some choice quotes from the article:
> 
> ...


A claim that was never proven.

----------


## Wildrose

> Can you elaborate on how they have been "addressed"?


By citing the actual cases, what they were about and how they were resolved.

The 2.3Bn was a regulatory dispute because they advertised a offlable uses for which the drug was working well.

A perfectly legal drug prescribed legally but the way the regulation was drawn it was unlawful to advertise the off label uses.

Some "unconscionable crime" for sure. :Thumbsup20:

----------


## Wildrose

> Another unsubstantiated assertion.


Yet you demonstrate it post after post.

How many actual deaths caused by vaccination have been confirmed?

Why have SIDS deaths fallen as vaccination has increased over the last 30 years if SIDS is caused by vaccination?

Why have "Excess Non Covid Related Deaths" not increased by more than 200x since mass vaccination for Covid began if they are attributable to Covid Vaccines?

----------


## phoenyx

> You failed of course to answer the questions I asked.  Care to try again?


If, in fact, I failed to answer any of your questions, you might consider just bringing them up again.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Links aren't proof of anything.
> 
> 
> 
> Links take you to the sources of the data.


They do. But I think it's been established for a while that you don't trust my sources of data and I don't trust yours, so it's unlikely that either of us would spend much time going over each other's entire articles or papers. The solution is to quote portions of your links that you think are most relevant. I'm sure you're aware that I do this all the time for mine.

----------


## Wildrose

> They do. But I think it's been established for a while that you don't trust my sources of data and I don't trust yours, so it's unlikely that either of us would spend much time going over each other's entire articles or papers. The solution is to quote portions of your links that you think are most relevant. I'm sure you're aware that I do this all the time for mine.


Your sources Virtually never have any actual data taken from any reliable or verifiable source.  On the rare occasions they do, it's misrepresented.

The most glowing example coming to mind is that Mercola and his sources claim there have been over 200,000 deaths caused by the vaccine according to "VAERS DATA" which isn't supported by anything on the VAERS website.

You want to believe them and that's all that matters to you.

----------


## Wildrose

> If, in fact, I failed to answer any of your questions, you might consider just bringing them up again.


Repetition is "repetitive" and unnecessary, you're two clicks away from the post.

----------


## WhoKnows

> Your sources Virtually never have any actual data taken from any *reliable or verifiable source*.  On the rare occasions they do, it's misrepresented.
> 
> The most glowing example coming to mind is that Mercola and his sources claim there have been over 200,000 deaths caused by the vaccine according to "VAERS DATA" which isn't supported by anything on the VAERS website.
> 
> You want to believe them and that's all that matters to you.


Bold mine. Who decides what is "reliable or verifiable"? 

The problem is, unless it comes out of your mouth, it isn't reliable or verifiable.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Did you even read what was quoted? This is no fly by night case. There are 3 references in the material quoted above. The first leads to an article by The Independent, published in 2009. Like Mercola.com, you need to sign up for a free account to see it, but that's not a paywall, so I did so. Quoting from the introduction of said article:
> **
> *A divorce case was all that passed for excitement at Richard P Altschuler's "kinda small" lawyer's office in West Haven, Connecticut, when the phone rang nine years ago. On the other end of the line, a world away in the heat of Nigeria, was Etigwe Uwo, a young lawyer with "an incredible story about Pfizer". The Lagos attorney was going to take on the largest pharmaceutical company in the world in an unprecedented class action pitting African parents against an American corporate giant. And he needed help.*
> *
> Mr Etigwe had chosen Mr Altschuler because, back in 1979, the Connecticut lawyer had successfully defended a friend of the Nigerian. The unlikely pair were about to embark on a marathon journey into the world of "big pharma". Nine years on and their efforts have finally been rewarded with a reported $75m (£50m) settlement, the terms of which are likely to be released this week.*
> 
> ...


You act as if convictions is the only thing that matters in this world. What matters is what actually -happened-, not whether or not Pfizer was convicted. I believe the fact that they ended up paying $75 million is indicative that they were guilty as charged. I also notice that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that anything that Pfizer has been accused of in this case wasn't true. Now, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty", but while they may escape conviction that way, that doesn't mean that they should be trusted.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I think you're focusing too much on specific terms, not enough on the evidence that's right in front of your eyes. 
> Sure, $3 billion dollars may simply be considered a business expense for a corporate giant like Pfizer, but based on what Mercola's article reveals, I believe they were let off far too easily. I think a criminal corporation like Pfizer should have been shut down long ago. Some choice quotes from the article:
> 
> 
> **
> *A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated.*
> ...


I listed multiple claims, for which Pfizer was fined around $3 billion. Secondly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, not everything is about being proven guilty in a court of law. Some people who are guilty get to walk, some people who are innocent get convicted. Here in this forum, we must all draw our -own- conclusions as to what most likely happened, and apply these conclusions to our assessments of Pfizer. For me, the odds that Pfizer was guilty as charged seem very high.

----------

WhoKnows (12-07-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> I listed multiple claims, for which Pfizer was fined around $3 billion. Secondly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, not everything is about being proven guilty in a court of law. Some people who are guilty get to walk, some people who are innocent get convicted. Here in this forum, we must all draw our -own- conclusions as to what most likely happened, and apply these conclusions to our assessments of Pfizer.* For me, the odds that Pfizer was guilty as charged seem very high.*


Bold mine. In the article it says they plead guilty. That means they admitted guilt. 

Wildrose is just running you around. To entertain himself. He really has no interest in a discussion. He's having fun with you. It's quite cruel, actually.

----------

phoenyx (12-07-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



As I've mentioned elsewhere, the most important thing is not whether a given party was found guilty or not in a court of law, but whether they were actually guilty.




> The 2.3Bn was a regulatory dispute because they advertised a offlable uses for which the drug was working well.


In that "regulatory dispute", a whistleblower alleges that Pfizer was putting lives at risk. Quoting from the article:
**
_A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
**

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...


I've seen no evidence to support your allegation.

----------


## Wildrose

> I've seen no evidence to support your allegation.


Of course you don't.

How about your refusal to read the long list of links I provided you in a post last night?

----------


## Wildrose

> Bold mine. Who decides what is "reliable or verifiable"? 
> 
> The problem is, unless it comes out of your mouth, it isn't reliable or verifiable.


Generally that would be a majority of the public or professionals in a given area of practice or study depending on the venue of the discussion.

Is Mercola considered such by a majority of the public at large, the scientific, or medical communities?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  Originally Posted by Wildrose
> ...



I strongly disagree.




> The most glowing example coming to mind is that Mercola and his sources claim there have been over 200,000 deaths caused by the vaccine according to "VAERS DATA" which isn't supported by anything on the VAERS website.


Mercola.com wrote an article which -asked- if over 200,000 deaths were caused by covid vaccines. The evidence for the theory that this many deaths were caused by the covid vaccine was from Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund. Anyway, if you'd like to discuss the validity of Steve Kirsh's findings, the thread below would be the place to do it:

*More than 200,000 deaths from Covid Vaccine in the U.S.?*

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> If, in fact, I failed to answer any of your questions, you might consider just bringing them up again.
> 
> 
> 
> Repetition is "repetitive" and unnecessary, you're two clicks away from the post.



Agreed, repetition is unnecessary. If you don't want to put the effort into repeating your alleged unanswered questions, then I see even less reason to try to dig them up myself.

----------


## Wildrose

> You act as if convictions is the only thing that matters in this world. What matters is what actually -happened-, not whether or not Pfizer was convicted. I believe the fact that they ended up paying $75 million is indicative that they were guilty as charged. I also notice that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that anything that Pfizer has been accused of in this case wasn't true. Now, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty", but while they may escape conviction that way, that doesn't mean that they should be trusted.


What is the thread title again?  Something about "Unconscionable Crimes" wasn't it?

The burden of proof is on the accuser, no the accused.

What actual crimes against persons has Pfizer been found guilty of?

----------


## Wildrose

> I listed multiple claims, for which Pfizer was fined around $3 billion. Secondly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, not everything is about being proven guilty in a court of law. Some people who are guilty get to walk, some people who are innocent get convicted. Here in this forum, we must all draw our -own- conclusions as to what most likely happened, and apply these conclusions to our assessments of Pfizer. For me, the odds that Pfizer was guilty as charged seem very high.


"Claims".  Again, 2.3Bn of that was a single case they inherited when they bought out Wyeth.

What actual crimes against persons has Pfizer been found guilty of?

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I listed multiple claims, for which Pfizer was fined around $3 billion. Secondly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, not everything is about being proven guilty in a court of law. Some people who are guilty get to walk, some people who are innocent get convicted. Here in this forum, we must all draw our -own- conclusions as to what most likely happened, and apply these conclusions to our assessments of Pfizer. *For me, the odds that Pfizer was guilty as charged seem very high.*
> 
> 
> 
> Bold mine. In the article it says they plead guilty. That means they admitted guilt. 
> 
> Wildrose is just running you around. To entertain himself. He really has no interest in a discussion. He's having fun with you. It's quite cruel, actually.


Regarding Wildrose, I don't know about that. I believe he really does believe what he's saying, but I also believe that he refuses to seriously consider that he might be wrong on a great many things. Anyway, I searched for the word "guilt" in the article to see where Pfizer admitted to being guilty, couldn't find it. I imagine another word was used- could you link it? I did find another passage in the article where Pfizer "admitted no wrong doing", so I certainly know that they haven't pled guilty to everything.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I've seen no evidence to support your allegation.
> 
> 
> 
> How about your refusal to read the long list of links I provided you in a post last night?


Why would I read through linked articles or papers when I doubt their credibility? Again, as mentioned elsewhere, if you think that specific passages from an article or paper merit my attention, by all means quote them, but I'm not going to go beyond that.

----------


## usfan

> Generally that would be a majority of the public or professionals in a given area of practice or study depending on the venue of the discussion.
> 
> Is Mercola considered such by a majority of the public at large, the scientific, or medical communities?


Why do you defend big pharma, when they have DECADES of corruption, profiteering,  and knowingly submitting unsafe pharmaceuticals?   The democratic party,  the media, academia, Hollywood,  billionaire tech moguls, and a growing segment of bobbleheaded indoctrinees,  nod at every lie disseminated by these crooks.  Are you just a shill for their propaganda?  You see no conflict defending these agenda driven ideologues?

----------


## Wildrose

> As I've mentioned elsewhere, the most important thing is not whether a given party was found guilty or not in a court of law, but whether they were actually guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> In that "regulatory dispute", a whistleblower alleges that Pfizer was putting lives at risk. Quoting from the article:
> **
> _A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
> **


"A whistleblower claimed" :Thumbsup20: 

That proves what exactly?

----------


## Wildrose

> Why do you defend big pharma, when they have DECADES of corruption, profiteering,  and knowingly submitting unsafe pharmaceuticals?   The democratic party,  the media, academia, Hollywood,  billionaire tech moguls, and a growing segment of bobbleheaded indoctrinees,  nod at every lie disseminated by these crooks.  Are you just a shill for their propaganda?  You see no conflict defending these agenda driven ideologues?


I'm providing fact an defending Truth.

If that's a problem for you I'm not the one with a problem.

----------


## usfan

> Regarding Wildrose, I don't know about that. I believe he really does believe what he's saying, but I also believe that he refuses to seriously consider that he might be wrong on a great many things. Anyway, I searched for the word "guilt" in the article to see where Pfizer admitted to being guilty, couldn't find it. I imagine another word was used- could you link it? I did find another passage in the article where Pfizer "admitted no wrong doing", so I certainly know that they haven't pled guilty to everything.


Wirh enough money, most cases can be settled,  with no admission of guilt.

----------

phoenyx (12-08-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> I strongly disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Mercola.com wrote an article which -asked- if over 200,000 deaths were caused by covid vaccines. The evidence for the theory that this many deaths were caused by the covid vaccine was from Steve Kirsch, executive director of the Covid-19 Early Treatment Fund. Anyway, if you'd like to discuss the validity of Steve Kirsh's findings, the thread below would be the place to do it:
> 
> *More than 200,000 deaths from Covid Vaccine in the U.S.?*


They insinuate the deaths are caused by the vaccine and go to great lengths to do so.

Nothing on the VAERS website supports any such claim.

----------


## Wildrose

> Agreed, repetition is unnecessary. If you don't want to put the effort into repeating your alleged unanswered questions, then I see even less reason to try to dig them up myself.


If you're really that lazy let's try one more time.

In all of those cases what deaths was Pfizer found guilty of?

In all of those cases what patients were proven to be harmed by Pfizer due to either intent or neglect?

----------


## Wildrose

> Wirh enough money, most cases can be settled,  with no admission of guilt.


Not in the case of criminal charges.

----------


## usfan

> I'm providing fact an defending Truth.
> 
> If that's a problem for you I'm not the one with a problem.


No, you're covering for decades old crooks and scoundrels.  Do you have stock in big Pharma,  or are on their payroll?

----------

WhoKnows (12-07-2021)

----------


## WhoKnows

> No, you're covering for decades old crooks and scoundrels.  Do you have stock in big Pharma,  or are on their payroll?


Pfizer has a long history of criminal behavior. It's all over the internet and they have multiple guilty pleas. Wildrose is just playing with all of us. For his own entertainment.

----------


## usfan

> Pfizer has a long history of criminal behavior. It's all over the internet and they have multiple guilty pleas. Wildrose is just playing with all of us. For his own entertainment.


I thought,  for unremembered reasons, that Wildrose was a she..  no?  It doesn't matter in Progresso World,  as you can switch as often as you like.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> You act as if convictions is the only thing that matters in this world. What matters is what actually -happened-, not whether or not Pfizer was convicted. I believe the fact that they ended up paying $75 million is indicative that they were guilty as charged. I also notice that you haven't produced a shred of evidence that anything that Pfizer has been accused of in this case wasn't true. Now, I'm all for "innocent until proven guilty", but while they may escape conviction that way, that doesn't mean that they should be trusted.
> 
> 
> 
> What is the thread title again?  Something about "Unconscionable Crimes" wasn't it?



Yes.





> The burden of proof is on the accuser, no the accused.



First of all, we're not in a court of law here. I believe the title has merit if there is sufficient evidence that it's true. I also believe that there is more than sufficient evidence in this case.




> What actual crimes against persons has Pfizer been found guilty of?


The title does not imply that Pfizer has been found guilty of these unconscionable crimes, only that they were committed. That being said, Pfizer paying $3 billion certainly suggests they are guilty of quite a bit.

----------


## WhoKnows

> I thought,  for unremembered reasons, that Wildrose was a she..  no?  It doesn't matter in Progresso World,  as you can switch as often as you like.


I don't assume anyone's gender!  :Headbang:

----------


## Wildrose

> No, you're covering for decades old crooks and scoundrels.  Do you have stock in big Pharma,  or are on their payroll?


Do you have snakes in your head or worms?

Try something new like disputing the facts I'm providing.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I listed multiple claims, for which Pfizer was fined around $3 billion. Secondly, as I've mentioned elsewhere, not everything is about being proven guilty in a court of law. Some people who are guilty get to walk, some people who are innocent get convicted. Here in this forum, we must all draw our -own- conclusions as to what most likely happened, and apply these conclusions to our assessments of Pfizer. For me, the odds that Pfizer was guilty as charged seem very high.
> 
> 
> 
> "Claims".  Again, 2.3Bn of that was a single case they inherited when they bought out Wyeth.



I see nothing of this Wyeth. This is what I see, from one of the sources in Mercola.com's article:
**
*Illegal marketing and kickbacks*
In September 2009, Pfizer was forced to pay $2.3 billion in a set of complex suits which included Pfizer’s illegal marketing of arthritis drug Bextra, and other medicines for uses unapproved by the US regulator, as well as kickbacks to doctors.(327) This was the largest health care fraud settlement (328) and the biggest criminal fine in US history at that time.(329) The case heard substantial evidence from a whistleblower who claimed that sales staff were incentivised to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended: (330) “At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,” the whistleblower stated.(331)
**

Source:

The horrible history of Big Pharma - Why we can’t leave pharmaceutical corporations in the driving seat of the Covid-19 response | globaljustice.org.uk

----------


## Wildrose

> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, we're not in a court of law here. I believe the title has merit if there is sufficient evidence that it's true. I also believe that there is more than sufficient evidence in this case.
> 
> 
> ...


You've presented nothing at all verifiable that shows Pfizer unlawfully caused any deaths at this point.

What is the thread title again?  "Unconscionable Crimes" or something wasn't it.

When there are actual crimes and a responsible party is identified particularly when those crimes result in deaths, there's generally at least a trial.

The best you can come up with so far is contested claims about complete informed consent in a trial in Nigeria.  A claim that was never proven anywhere.

----------


## WhoKnows

> *You've presented nothing at all verifiable that shows Pfizer unlawfully caused any deaths at this point.*
> 
> What is the thread title again?  "Unconscionable Crimes" or something wasn't it.
> 
> When there are actual crimes and a responsible party is identified particularly when those crimes result in deaths, there's generally at least a trial.
> 
> The best you can come up with so far is contested claims about complete informed consent in a trial in Nigeria.  A claim that was never proven anywhere.


Bold mine. 

Ohhhhhhhh, so now they have to cause death to be criminals??? 

They entered guilty pleas to various felonies. As per the articles posted in the OP. 

You deciding that that isn't enough to make it "verifiable" doesn't mean it hasn't been verified. That's entirely in your head.

----------


## Wildrose

> I see nothing of this Wyeth. This is what I see, from one of the sources in Mercola.com's article:
> **
> *Illegal marketing and kickbacks*
> In September 2009, Pfizer was forced to pay $2.3 billion in a set of complex suits which included Pfizer’s illegal marketing of arthritis drug Bextra, and other medicines for uses unapproved by the US regulator, as well as kickbacks to doctors.(327) This was the largest health care fraud settlement (328) and the biggest criminal fine in US history at that time.(329) The case heard substantial evidence from a whistleblower who claimed that sales staff were incentivised to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasn’t approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended: (330) “At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldn’t do that,” the whistleblower stated.(331)
> **
> 
> Source:
> 
> The horrible history of Big Pharma - Why we can’t leave pharmaceutical corporations in the driving seat of the Covid-19 response | globaljustice.org.uk


I already provided it to you several times now.  Wyeth was the 235 Million dollar fine.

https://www.news.com.au/world/breaki...3fb0986ac27555

That was inherited by Pfizer when they bought Wyeth.

Pfizer settles more off-label marketing cases tied to Rapamune  | FiercePharma

Any chance you'll make note and remember it this time so I don't have to repeat it again?

----------


## Wildrose

> Bold mine. 
> 
> Ohhhhhhhh, so now they have to cause death to be criminals??? 
> 
> They entered guilty pleas to various felonies. As per the articles posted in the OP. 
> 
> You deciding that that isn't enough to make it "verifiable" doesn't mean it hasn't been verified. That's entirely in your head.


Since we couldn't find any actual convictions I lowered the bar to those including prosecution for deaths.

Just how low does the bar have to be to be, "Unconscionable"?

----------


## WhoKnows

> Since we couldn't find any actual convictions I lowered the bar to those including prosecution for deaths.
> 
> Just how low does the bar have to be to be, "Unconscionable"?


So you're saying that pleading guilty to a crime isn't a conviction, huh?

----------


## Wildrose

> So you're saying that pleading guilty to a crime isn't a conviction, huh?


When you plead guilty to a crime you are convicted of that crime.  When and where has Pfizer entered such a plea in a criminal court?

----------


## WhoKnows

> When you plead guilty to a crime you are convicted of that crime.  When and where has Pfizer entered such a plea in a criminal court?


 :Smiley ROFLMAO: 

READ MORE. WRITE LESS.  :Thumbsup20:

----------


## usfan

> Do you have snakes in your head or worms?
> 
> Try something new like disputing the facts I'm providing.





> Since we couldn't find any actual convictions I lowered the bar to those including prosecution for deaths.
> 
> Just how low does the bar have to be to be, "Unconscionable"?


..the only thing I find 'unconscionable!', is to be a willing shill for the conspiracy to destroy America. 

You have to know that big Pharma is indefensible,  from a 'conscience!' perspective. They were/are ..responsible.. for more deaths, around the world, than anyone can count.  To willingly cover for them, and their anti-American allies, exposes you as a leftist shill, regardless of spin or interference in other topics.  You are not a patriotic American,  but an anti-American ideologue, running interference for the destroyers of America. 

No big deal.  You have a lot of comrades..  many of whom are well paid, to disseminate leftist propaganda.   

The question is, Do you know you are doing this, or are you merely a dupe for the destroyers?

----------

WhoKnows (12-07-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> READ MORE. WRITE LESS.


Punt and miss.

----------


## Wildrose

> ..the only thing I find 'unconscionable!', is to be a willing shill for the conspiracy to destroy America. 
> 
> You have to know that big Pharma is indefensible,  from a 'conscience!' perspective. They were/are ..responsible.. for more deaths, around the world, than anyone can count.  To willingly cover for them, and their anti-American allies, exposes you as a leftist shill, regardless of spin or interference in other topics.  You are not a patriotic American,  but an anti-American ideologue, running interference for the destroyers of America. 
> 
> No big deal.  You have a lot of comrades..  many of whom are well paid, to disseminate leftist propaganda.   
> 
> The question is, Do you know you are doing this, or are you merely a dupe for the destroyers?


Well no, none of this can even remotely be shown to be true.

You're fabricating bullshit and mindless conspiracy theories.

----------


## usfan

> Well no, none of this can even remotely be shown to be true.
> 
> You're fabricating bullshit and mindless conspiracy theories.


Believe and say whatever you want.  It does not explain your motives or agenda.

..or..  maybe it does..

----------

WhoKnows (12-07-2021)

----------


## Wildrose

> Believe and say whatever you want.  It does not explain your motives or agenda.
> 
> ..or..  maybe it does..


My motives are simple as is my agenda.

I want people to be able to make the best possible decisions for themselves and their families about vaccination based on the best information available.

That doesn't come from anti vaxx conspiracy sites or any combination of the two.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> As I've mentioned elsewhere, the most important thing is not whether a given party was found guilty or not in a court of law, but whether they were actually guilty.
> 
> In that "regulatory dispute", a whistleblower alleges that Pfizer was putting lives at risk. Quoting from the article:
> **
> _A whistleblower claimed that sales staff were incentivized to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended. At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, he stated._
> **
> ...


When did I say that it proved anything? I'm presenting you with evidence that Pfizer seemed to put profits above virtually anything else. You can, ofcourse, point out that just because a whistleblower made this claim doesn't mean it's true. But you can't deny that it is -evidence- that it is true.

----------


## phoenyx

> Wirh enough money, most cases can be settled,  with no admission of guilt.


Agreed.

----------

WhoKnows (12-08-2021)

----------


## phoenyx

> They insinuate the deaths are caused by the vaccine and go to great lengths to do so.


I decided it would be best to respond to you in the thread that was made for this subject:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2935497

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> Agreed, repetition is unnecessary. If you don't want to put the effort into repeating your alleged unanswered questions, then I see even less reason to try to dig them up myself.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're really that lazy



The term "lazy" is actually interesting. While it can at times be used when referring to oneself, it is also frequently used when one party -thinks- that another party should put in more of an effort on a given theme. The other party doesn't need to agree. That would be the case here. 





> let's try one more time.



Sounds good.




> In all of those cases what deaths was Pfizer found guilty of?



I'm not sure. However, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the most important thing is not whether a given party was found guilty or not in a court of law, but whether they were actually guilty. @usfan also had something good to say on this subject:
"[With] enough money, most cases can be settled, with no admission of guilt."

Source:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2934783




> In all of those cases what patients were proven to be harmed by Pfizer due to either intent or neglect?


Same answer as above.

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> The title does not imply that Pfizer has been found guilty of these unconscionable crimes, only that they were committed. That being said, Pfizer paying $3 billion certainly suggests they are guilty of quite a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> You've presented nothing at all verifiable that shows Pfizer unlawfully caused any deaths at this point.


I've presented evidence that Pfizer caused some deaths. For those who may be joining this discussion, I delve deep into the evidence here:
https://thepoliticsforums.com/thread...=1#post2934206

----------


## phoenyx

> Originally Posted by phoenyx
> 
> 
> I see nothing of this Wyeth. This is what I see, from one of the sources in Mercola.com's article:
> **
> *Illegal marketing and kickbacks*
> In September 2009, Pfizer was forced to pay $2.3 billion in a set of complex suits which included Pfizers illegal marketing of arthritis drug Bextra, and other medicines for uses unapproved by the US regulator, as well as kickbacks to doctors.(327) This was the largest health care fraud settlement (328) and the biggest criminal fine in US history at that time.(329) The case heard substantial evidence from a whistleblower who claimed that sales staff were incentivised to sell Bextra to doctors for conditions for which the drug wasnt approved and at doses up to eight times those recommended: (330) At Pfizer I was expected to increase profits at all costs, even when sales meant endangering lives. I couldnt do that, the whistleblower stated.(331)
> **
> 
> ...



That's about Rapamune, not about Bextra, and it's 235 million, not 2.3 billion.

----------


## QuaseMarco

*Pfizer Paid the Largest Criminal Fine in U.S. HistoryLawsuit Details*https://marketrealist.com/p/who-paid...ne-in-history/

----------

phoenyx (01-08-2022)

----------


## griever

I made an article about this and other crimes by the cdc and fda called:

Adventures in Medical Lawlessness

you may find it eye opening. check it out

----------

phoenyx (01-08-2022)

----------

