Connect with us

Health

PROFIT FROM DEATH: OxyContin consultant suggested paying BONUSES to distributors for each drug overdose as part of sales “turbocharge” strategy

Editor

Published

on

Court documents released last week under Purdue Pharma’s bankruptcy process reveal that that consultancy firm McKinsey & Company advised its client to pay rebates to distributors of OxyContin whenever an overdose case could be traced back to abuse of the controversial opioid pill.

The purpose of these kickbacks or bonuses was to help “turbocharge” Purdue’s sales of the deadly drug, thus producing higher profits for the pharmaceutical giant amid escalating scrutiny over its illicit marketing and sales practices.

Though the Trump administration reportedly cut a deal with the Sackler family, which runs Purdue, to protect them from criminal liability, the company has reportedly agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges over the way it peddled OxyContin to the masses.

In a 2017 presentation, McKinsey advised Purdue to compensate distributors of OxyContin for the damage associated with their selling of the drug in order to help boost sales. These distributors include the pharmacy chain CVS Health and Anthem, which are two of McKinsey’s biggest clients.

McKinsey came up with estimates for how many people would likely overdose or get hooked on OxyContin, advising Purdue to pay rebates for these “events” in order to still continue raking in windfall profits from the drug’s illicit sale.

Each of the 2,484 cases of overdose or addiction from OxyContin that were traced through these respective distributors were reportedly to be paid $14,810 per case, netting the distributors $36.8 million in kickbacks. However, CVS and Anthem both claim that they never actually received these “rebates.”

Millions of Americans had their lives destroyed because of Purdue, McKinsey and the Sackler family

To try to cover their tracks, McKinsey’s senior partners discussed one year later the importance of “eliminating all our documents and emails.” This suggestion was made after the state of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit against a former Purdue board member for the role she played in fueling the opioid crisis.

“Thank for the heads up. Will do,” responded Arnab Ghatak to an email from McKinsey’s North American pharmaceutical practice leader Martin Elling advising the destruction of evidence.

McKinsey also reportedly advised the Sackler family to accept the “turbocharge” sales plan as part of a pushback plan against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was finally starting to get involved in holding the company accountable.

Unredacted legal papers in the Massachusetts case that were released last year show that Purdue followed McKinsey’s advice in engaging predatory business practices that harmed and killed millions of Americans.

In the comment section of a New York Times article on the unfolding saga, readers were outraged that Purdue, McKinsey, and the Sackler family would hold other human lives in such low regard as to sacrifice them for filthy lucre.

Many called the operation and those involved “evil,” emphasizing that everyone who was complicit needs to be held accountable for their crimes against humanity.

“This is the banality of evil, M.B.A. edition,” stated former McKinsey consultant Anand Giridharadas, who reviewed the documents and confirmed what took place.

“They knew what was going on. And they found a way to look past it, through it, around it, so as to answer the only questions they cared about: how to make the client money and, when the walls closed in, how to protect themselves.”

Over at RT, commenters were equally outraged. One wrote that while it is great that Purdue is now bankrupt, its leaders and the entire Sackler family, whom Trump is defending for whatever reason, need to be held liable for their criminal activities.

“But they won’t be,” another responded. “Most have absconded to Israel with the loot.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Health

BRAINWASHING THE YOUNG: Cry Babies dolls allow children to “vaccinate” their dolls, causing measles-looking red dots on their face to vanish

Editor

Published

on

By

Awareness seems to be growing about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines, so much so that a children’s doll product known as “Cry Babies” was designed to brainwash innocent kids into believing that vaccination is the way to “cure” disease.

A commercial spot for Cry Babies shows two little girls playing with a doll named “Kristal” that develops strange red spots on her face. When the girls notice the spots, their response is to immediately inject the doll with a vaccine, which makes the red spots disappear on contact.

“Look, she has spots!” the one girl says to the other.

“Give her the injection!” the other responds.

On the Cry Babies website, the description for the Kristal doll explains that she “is sick” and needs “the right medicine” in order “to help her feel better.”

“If she gets a cough, give her the medicine to help her stop coughing,” the description adds. “If she gets a fever, you will need to dab her forehead with the wet cloth to help cool her down.”

“When red spot will appear on her face, give her the injection to make them disappear!” it is further explained. “Like all Cry Babies, Kristal also cries real tears when you remove her dummy and makes realistic baby sounds. 6 accessories included; a dummy, a stethoscope, an injection, a cloth, cough syrup and a thermometer.”

Normalizing vaccines for every ailment is the ultimate goal

The Kristal doll, along with the rest of the Cry Babies lineup, is reportedly available in the United States at Target, Walmart and Amazon. The company that manufactures them, IMC Toys, is based out of the United Kingdom.

Brainwashing young kids into believing that vaccines are “science-based medicine” is only part of the agenda, by the way. The ultimate goal is to convince the next generation that vaccines are the “cure” for pretty much every ailment and addiction, whether it be plandemic viruses like Covid-19 or alcohol addiction.

Vaccines are the be all, end all “solution” to whatever ails you, in other words. This is the true agenda behind children’s products like Cry Babies, which parents need to be aware of and avoid while doing their Christmas shopping this year.

On Twitter, vaccine truth advocates jested at Kristal, pointing out that the doll probably does not come with real-life side effects such as diarrhea, asthma and seizures.

“The doll gets some autoimmune / allergic rash and they inject some high-dose corticosteroid / immunosuppressants and the rash goes away (for some time at least). Just like real doctors!” wrote one, making a great point about how the Kristal doll is ill-equipped to teach children the intricacies about how injections really work.

Another noted that such propaganda has been a mainstay of American programming for many decades, though in the past it was primarily geared towards an adult audience.

“Since the late 40s / early 50s, TV has spread the disease of excessive consumerism throughout societies worldwide,” this person wrote. “Add to that its use as a highly effective propaganda tool and it didn’t take long for the corporate world to realize the propaganda with products such as this.”

Perhaps the best advice came from one user who encouraged parents to program their children with the truth rather than allow them to be programmed with pro-vaccine propaganda.

“Show your kids the vaccine-injured babies and their parents’ stories,” this individual added, stressing that the next generation of youth need to recognize that vaccines are unsafe and harmful, and are not a risk worth taking under nearly any circumstance.

Continue Reading

Health

Johns Hopkins published, then deleted, study showing COVID-19 had no measurable effect on deaths in the United States

Editor

Published

on

By

The Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is not even close to being the threat that Anthony Fauci and others in government continue to claim it is. And Johns Hopkins University agrees – or at least it did agree before the school deleted a study it published showing that the novel virus has had “relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”

Thanks to the Wayback Machine, we were able to pull up the now-deleted original paper, which delineates that so-called “infection” with COVID-19 is really no big deal.

When it comes to the death rate this year, there has been almost no change compared to previous years, despite the presence of COVID-19. Things are essentially the same as they have always been, the exception being all the panic, mask-wearing, and eager anticipation among some of a soon-coming vaccine.

“The reason we have a higher number of reported COVID-19 deaths among older individuals than younger individuals is simply because every day in the U.S. older individuals die in higher numbers than younger individuals,” stated Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Hopkins.

After compiling and analyzing the death rate among all age groups both before and after the pandemic was declared in the United States on March 13, Briand found that the death rate among older people, who are said to be most susceptible, remained the same.

So while it is said that COVID-19 mainly affects the elderly, significantly increasing their risk of death supposedly, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) disagrees.

More of the latest news about COVID-19 can be found at Pandemic.news.

No, COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among Americans

Briand further found that COVID-19 has not increased the death rate among younger people, either. In every age category, the death rate has remained roughly the same both before and during the pandemic, suggesting that all the panic and hysteria is completely unfounded.

In every year prior to 2020, the death rate from all causes has remained the same. Even this year when accounting for so-called COVID-19 deaths, the overall death total has not changed.

“This is true every year,” Briand says about the seasonal increases in death that usually occur in the fall and winter months, 2020 being no exception. “Every year in the U.S. when we observe the seasonal ups and downs, we have an increase of deaths due to all causes.”

What has changed this year is that all other causes of death, including heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza, and pneumonia, have mysteriously declined, while COVID-19 deaths have increased.

This proves that deaths from all causes are now being categorized exclusively as deaths from COVID-19. Meanwhile, nobody is dying anymore from heart disease, respiratory illness, influenza or pneumonia.

A data chart included in Briand’s study illustrates this clearly, showing that the total decrease in deaths by other causes almost exactly equals the increase in deaths by COVID-19.

“This suggests, according to Briand, that the COVID-19 death toll is misleading,” the paper explains. “Briand believes that deaths due to heart diseases, respiratory diseases, influenza and pneumonia may instead be recategorized as being due to COVID-19.”

In other words, if a person tests positive for COVID-19 and dies at some point in the future from any cause, that death is tabulated as caused by COVID-19 for political and financial purposes.

“All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths,” Briand reiterated. “Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers. We found no evidence to the contrary.”

Continue Reading

Health

Expert points out “shaky science” behind AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trial results

Editor

Published

on

By

An expert has warned that results from AstraZeneca’s coronavirus vaccine trials are based on “shaky science.” Scientist-turned-writer Hilda Bastian pointed out that data on the British drugmaker’s COVID-19 vaccine, developed with the University of Oxford, has been “patched together” and excludes groups with the highest COVID-19 risk. Bastian wrote in a piece for Wired that AstraZeneca’s data came from two separate studies – one in May and another that commenced at the end of June – that were substantially different from each other. She remarked: “The fact that they may have had to combine data from [these] two trials in order to get a strong result raises the first red flag.”

Bastian mentioned that a dosing error contributed to a higher success rate: Experts accidentally gave some volunteers one and a half doses of the vaccine instead of two full doses. She added the trials were never designed to test this method of dosing, and scientists only caught the “mistake” when some participants did not exhibit the usual high rate of adverse effects. Bastian noted in her Wired article that “of the only two regimens … the mistaken first half-dose, followed by a full dose at least a month later came in at 90 percent [efficacy], and the … two standard doses at least a month apart [regimen] achieved only 62 percent efficacy.”

The expert also mentioned that the trials by AstraZeneca and Oxford appear to include only a small amount of people aged 55 and above – despite this particular age group being vulnerable to COVID-19. The June vaccine trial held in Brazil did not originally permit people over 55; on the other hand, a separate trial by Pfizer and BioNTech had 41 percent of volunteers over 55 who participated.

A number of experts have also voiced out concerns against AstraZeneca’s presented data

Former Pfizer Global Research and Development President John LaMattina raised the prospect that AstraZeneca’s vaccine may not receive approval from U.S. authorities. He tweeted Nov. 24 that it was “hard to believe” the Food and Drug Administration will issue an emergency use authorization for a vaccine “whose optimal dose has only been given to 2,300 people,” adding that “more data” was needed.

SVB Leerink investment analyst Geoffrey Porges told the Financial Times that the British pharmaceutical firm’s coronavirus vaccine candidate was likely to be rejected because it had “tried to embellish [the trial’s] results” by highlighting its effectiveness in a “relatively small subset of” participants in the study.

Continue Reading

Chat

Trending