The latest Patreon talk highlights the 4/6/2022 UN Security Council discussion, boycotted by the U.S. and U.K. and blacked out in Western media, at which Russia detailed its apparent discoveries of U.S. biological warfare programs in Ukraine. Some of the most startling information concerned “digitized,” satellite-monitored migratory birds fitted with capsules of deadly pathogens. When the birds are over a targeted country, they can be killed and the pathogens spread, precipitating an epidemic. A 1960s program run by the U.S. Army and involving migratory birds at an Indian bird sanctuary may have been a precursor to this program. Ukrainian television anchor quotes Adolf Eichmann verbatim in this video from UKRAINE 24. WFMU-FM is podcasting For The Record–You can subscribe to the podcast HERE. Mr. Emory emphatically recommends that listeners/readers get the 32GB flash drive containing all of Mr. Emory’s 43 years on the air, plus a library of old anti-fascist books on easy-to-download PDF files.
The beginning of the program consists of analytical review of the capital interests behind BioNTech–the German corporate partner producing a Covid vaccine with Pfizer.
Headed by a German MD couple whose parents were “gastarbeiter” (guest workers), BioNTech has soared exponentially in value since the approval of the vaccine by a number of countries.
A dominant consideration in power politics remains the advisory to “Follow the Money.”
Against the background of I.G. Farben and its successor companies’ dominant position in both the global pharmaceutical and chemical market, as well as its major position within the remarkable and deadly Bormann capital network, the program explores the capitalization of Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci’s Ganymed firm and BioNTech.
Of paramount significance in both Ganymed (the couple’s initial commercial venture) and BioNtech are twin brothers Thomas and Andreas Struengmann.
Key points of analysis:
1.–The brothers are major players in the pharmaceutical and biotech market.
2.–They keep a purposefully low professional profile–a professional behavior characteristic of the deadly Bormann network.
3.–Thomas was an important member of the board of Wacker Chemie, a major successor to two I.G. Farben subsidiary companies.
4.–Wacker Chemie has apparently obfuscated its Nazi past.
5.–Andreas initiated his medical career in apartheid South Africa, and the brothers’ Hexal firm began its significant international expansion in that country. (The apartheid regime was an offshoot of the Third Reich.)
6.–Firms that evolved from I.G. Farben figure prominently in the dealings of Hexal, Wacker Chemie and BioNTech (Novartis, the Hoechst division of Sanofi-Aventis.)
The balance of the program presents analysis of the profound relationship between the Bormann capital network and I.G. Farben.
Forged during the closing days of the war, the close cooperation between corporate “masker” Hermann Schmitz and Bormann, the relationship built on the dominant position of I.G. Farben in the Third Reich and its interrelated military and industrial/commercial campaigns.
” . . . . If there is any doubt in Europe who in the long run won the peace, there is none whatsoever among the former German leaders dwelling in South America. It is a good bet that if Hermann Schmitz were alive today, he would bear witness as to who really won. Schmitz died contented, having witnessed the resurgence of I.G. Farben, albeit in altered corporate forms, a money machine that continues to generate profits for all the old I.G. shareholders and enormous international power for the German cadre directing the workings of the successor firms. . . . He was the master manipulator, the corporate and financial wizard, the magician, who could make money appear and disappear, and reappear again. His whole existence was legerdemain, played out on the gameboard of I.G. Farben and his beloved Germany. . . Their [Schmitz and Bormann] association was close and trusting over the years, and it is the considered opinion of those in their circle that the wealth possessed by Hermann Schmitz was shifted to Switzerland and South America, and placed in trust with Bormann, the legal heir to Hitler. [Hermann] Schmitz’s wealth—largely I.G. Farben bearer bonds converted to the Big Three successor firms, shares in Standard Oil of New Jersey (equal to those held by the Rockefellers), as well as shares in the 750 corporations he helped Bormann establish during the last year of World War II—has increased in all segments of the modern industrial world. The Bormann organization in South America utilizes the voting power of the Schmitz trust along with their own assets to guide the multinationals they control, as they keep steady the economic course of the Fatherland. . . . ”
After the war, the three main successor firms to I.G.–Hoechst (now a division of Sanofi-Aventis), Bayer and BASF rose to a pinnacle of sales and R & D dominance.
Program Highlights Include: Review of Dorothy Thompson’s 1940 analysis of the Third Reich blueprint for world political domination, predicated on world economic domination (including the exploitation of decisive cartel relationships with the Wall Street elite; an account of Bertelsmann’s forthcoming purchase of Simon & Schuster, making this “former” publishing house for the SS a “Titan” in English-language publishing; a synoptic review of the scenario presented in the Nazi tract Serpent’s Walk.
The program begins with analytic review of the military’s role in U.S. vaccine development.
In previous posts and programs, we have noted that Moderna’s vaccine work has been financed by DARPA. We have also noted that the overall head of Operation Warp Speed is Moncef Slaoui, formerly in charge of product development for Moderna!
Of great significance is the central role of the military in the development of treatment for Covid-19:
1.–We note that: ” . . . . Remdesivir predates this pandemic. It was first considered as a potential treatment for Ebola, and was developed through a longstanding partnership between the U.S. Army and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. . . .”
2.–Jonathan King, who has chaired the microbial physiology study section for the NIH has sounded the alarm about “vaccine research” masking offensive biological warfare research: “. . . . King, who has chaired the microbial physiology study section for the NIH, believes that without intensive independent scrutiny, the Pentagon is free to obscure its true goals. ‘The Defense Department appears to be pursuing many narrow, applied goals that are by nature offensive, such as the genetic ‘improvement’ of BW agents,’ King says. ‘But to achieve political acceptability, they mask these intentions under forms of research, such as vaccine development, which sound defensive. . . .”
3.–Moderna’s vaccine development was overseen by an unnamed Pentagon official: ” . . . . Moderna’s team was headed by a Defense Department official whom company executives described only as ‘the major,’ saying they don’t know if his name is supposed to be a secret. . . . .”
4.–The pervasive role of the military in Operation Warp Speed (the Trump administration’s vaccine development program) has generated alarm in civilian participants:”. . . . Scores of Defense Department employees are laced through the government offices involved in the effort, making up a large portion of the federal personnel devoted to the effort. Those numbers have led some current and former officials at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to privately grumble that the military’s role in Operation Warp Speed was too large for a task that is, at its core, a public health campaign. . . .”
5.–General Gustave Perna–one of the principals in Operation Warp Speed–has chosen a retired Lieutenant General to oversee much of the program: ” . . . . ‘Frankly, it has been breathtaking to watch,’ said Paul Ostrowski, the director of supply, production and distribution for Operation Warp Speed. He is a retired Army lieutenant general who was selected to manage logistics for the program by Gen. Gustave F. Perna, the chief operating officer for Operation Warp Speed. . . .”
6.–The military will be able to trace the destination and administration of each dose: ” . . . . Military officials also came up with the clever idea — if it works — to coordinate the delivery of vaccines to drugstores, medical centers and other immunization sites by sending kits full of needles, syringes and alcohol wipes. Vaccine makers will be alerted when the kits arrive at an immunization site so they know to ship doses. Once the first dose is given, the manufacturer will be notified so it can send the second dose with a patient’s name attached several weeks later. The military will also monitor vaccine distribution through an operations center. ‘They will know where every vaccine dose is,’ Mr. [Paul] Mango said on a call with reporters. . . .”
Obfuscating the nature of U.S. vaccine contracting is the fact that the contracting is done through ATI. ” . . . . In part, it’s because of the way many Operation Warp Speed contracts have been executed, with their terms largely invisible to the public. . . . under the hood, the effort’s largest agreements with vaccine companies—totaling more than $6 billion—have been managed by a third party, a defense-oriented nonprofit called Advanced Technology International (ATI). . . . with ATI as an intermediary, these billion-dollar deals instead fall under something called an ‘other transaction agreement’ that isn’t subject to the same kinds of cross-checks and accountability. . . .”
The balance of the program consists of analysis of the capital interests behind BioNTech–the German corporate partner producing a Covid vaccine with Pfizer.
Headed by a German MD couple whose parents were “gastarbeiter” (guest workers), BioNTech has soared exponentially in value since the approval of the vaccine by a number of countries.
A dominant consideration in power politics remains the advisory to “Follow the Money.”
Against the background of I.G. Farben and its successor companies’ dominant position in both the global pharmaceutical and chemical market, as well as its major position within the remarkable and deadly Bormann capital network, the program explores the capitalization of Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci’s Ganymed firm and BioNTech.
Of paramount significance in both Ganymed (the couple’s initial commercial venture) and BioNtech are twin brothers Thomas and Andreas Struengmann.
Key points of analysis:
1.–The brothers are major players in the pharmaceutical and biotech market.
2.–They keep a purposefully low professional profile–a professional behavior characteristic of the deadly Bormann network.
3.–Thomas was an important member of the board of Wacker Chemie, a major successor to two I.G. Farben subsidiary companies.
4.–Wacker Chemie has apparently obfuscated its Nazi past.
5.–Andreas initiated his medical career in apartheid South Africa, and the brothers’ Hexal firm began its significant international expansion in that country. (The apartheid regime was an offshoot of the Third Reich.)
6.–Firms that evolved from I.G. Farben figure prominently in the dealings of Hexal, Wacker Chemie and BioNTech (Novartis, the Hoechst division of Sanofi-Aventis.)
We begin by Introducing the topic of Moderna’s SARS Cov‑2 vaccine as a money maker for both Moderna and as a driver for the market as a whole, we note last Monday’s announcement which generated a major boost in the value of Moderna’s stock and a strong, general rally. The latter apparently stems from optimism that a sucessful vaccine will alleviate the economic damage from Covid-19.
A MarketWatch piece about the rapid fluctuation of Moderna’s stock underscores the significance of the timing of an announcement casting Moderna’s vaccine trial in overly optimistic light:
1.–Moderna’s CEO (Stephen Bancel) and CFO (Lorence Kim) both sold stock on Friday, in accordance with prearranged transactions. Bear in mind, that (as discussed in FTR #1130) Moderna’s stock was trading at $23.46 at the beginning of the year, and the company–which has never marketed a vaccine–was the beneficiary of $483 million dollars in federal funding earlier in the year.) ” . . . . On Friday, Bancel sold 11,046 shares at a weighted average price of $65.56 for about $724,200, as part of a predetermined trading plan adopted Dec. 28, 2018, according to a Form 4 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission. He also disposed of 1,577 shares as part of a ‘bona fide’ gift. . . . Also, on Friday, Kim sold 20,000 shares at a weighted average price of $65.53 for about $1.31 million, as part of a predetermined trading plan. . . .”
2.–Kim also simultaneously bought and sold shares of his firm for a net profit of $16.79 million on Monday, the day of an overly optimistic announcement by Moderna. The fortuitously timed Moderna announcement made the firm’s CFO roughly $4 million: ” . . . . On Monday, he [Kim] exercised options to buy 241,000 shares at a weighted average price of $12.45 for about $3 million, also as part of a predetermined plan. At the same time, Kim executed sales of 241,000 shares, at a weighted average price of $82.12 for about $19.79 million. That means Kim netted about $16.79 million on the simultaneous buy and sale of shares. . . . with Monday’s stock price surge following the announcement of early data on its vaccine candidate potentially adding $4 million to Kim’s coffers. . . .”
3.–The above-referenced announcement by Moderna led to a dramatic increase in Moderna’s stock and boosted the market as a whole. Moderna announced that evening that it would sell $1.34 billion in stock to help its vaccine operation: ” . . . . Shares of Moderna closed at a record high of $80.00 on Monday after the company released a slice of positive interim clinical data from the first phase of its COVID-19 vaccine trial. That night it announced it would sell $1.34 billion in stock to help fund manufacturing costs associated with the experimental COVID-19 vaccine. . . .”
4.–Moderna’s stock nosedived at the end of the trading day on Tuesday, due to a critical article from Stat News: ” . . . . The stock took a nose dive on Tuesday, closing at $71.67, likely due in some degree to a Stat News story that questioned a lack of clinical clarity in the data it provided to investors. . . .”
Moderna’s announcement was critically assessed by Stat News, which pointed out that the results were incomplete at best: ” . . . . In a clinical-trial data disclosure on Monday, Moderna shared that eight out of 45 participants in its COVID-19 vaccine study developed neutralizing antibodies, a decision that Stat’s Helen Branswell described as a ‘reason for caution.’ It didn’t share information about the immune response to the experimental vaccine in the remaining 37 participants. . . .”
5.–Nonetheless, Moderna’s stock–bolstered by government investment–has been on a dramatic upward swing: ” . . . . The company’s stock was up 3.8% in trading on Wednesday. Year-to-date, it has soared 270.2%, even though the company has no approved products. . . .”
There are serious questions about the substance of Moderna’s statement:
1.–Moderna’s much touted report on its vaccine—which triggered an upsurge in the markets on Monday—appears to have been incomplete, at best, and purposefully deceptive, at worst. “ . . . . While Moderna blitzed the media, it revealed very little information — and most of what it did disclose were words, not data.. . . . If you ask scientists to read a journal article, they will scour data tables, not corporate statements. With science, numbers speak much louder than words. Even the figures the company did release don’t mean much on their own, because critical information — effectively the key to interpreting them — was withheld. . . .”
2.–Part of the reason for alarm and skepticism concerns the behavior of the NIAID—whose director is Anthony Fauci: “ . . . . The National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases has partnered with Moderna on this vaccine. Scientists at NIAID made the vaccine’s construct, or prototype, and the agency is running the Phase 1 trial. This week’s Moderna readout came from the earliest of data from the NIAID-led Phase 1. NIAID doesn’t hide its light under a bushel. The institute generally trumpets its findings, often offering director Anthony Fauci . . . or other senior personnel for interviews. But NIAID did not put out a press release Monday and declined to provide comment on Moderna’s announcement. . . .”
3.–To begin with, Moderna’s announcement was only statistically substantive for 8 of the 45 volunteer subjects: “ . . . . The company’s statement led with the fact that all 45 subjects (in this analysis) who received doses of 25 micrograms (two doses each), 100 micrograms (two doses each), or a 250 micrograms (one dose) developed binding antibodies. Later, the statement indicated that eight volunteers — four each from the 25-microgram and 100-microgram arms — developed neutralizing antibodies. Of the two types, these are the ones you’d really want to see. We don’t know results from the other 37 trial participants. . . .”
4.–It is possible that neutralizing antibodies may have been developed in the 37 test subjects whose data was not released because the testing process is exacting. Still the statement warrants caution, at the least. “ . . . . This doesn’t mean that they didn’t develop neutralizing antibodies.Testing for neutralizing antibodies is more time-consuming than other antibody tests and must be done in a biosecurity level 3 laboratory. Moderna disclosed the findings from eight subjects because that’s all it had at that point. Still, it’s a reason for caution . . . .”
5.–In addition, the age of the subjects was not released and that is relevant. “ . . . . Separately, while the Phase 1 trial included healthy volunteers ages 18 to 55 years, the exact ages of these eight people are unknown. If, by chance, they mostly clustered around the younger end of the age spectrum, you might expect a better response to the vaccine than if they were mostly from the senior end of it. And given who is at highest risk from the SARS-CoV‑2 coronavirus, protecting older adults is what Covid-19 vaccines need to do. . . .”
6.–In addition, there was no data released as to the durability of the neutralizing antibodies. If, for the sake of argument, they are not long-lasting, the utility of the vaccine is negligible. “ . . . . The report of neutralizing antibodies in subjects who were vaccinated comes from blood drawn two weeks after they received their second dose of vaccine. Two weeks. ‘That’s very early. We don’t know if those antibodies are durable,’ said Anna Durbin, a vaccine researcher at Johns Hopkins University. . . .”
7.–Still another point of contention/alarm concerns the variability in neutralizing antibodies among recovered patients: “ . . . . But studies have shown antibody levels among people who have recovered from the illness vary enormously; the range that may be influenced by the severity of a person’s disease. John ‘Jack’ Rose, a vaccine researcher from Yale University, pointed STAT to a study from China that showed that, among 175 recovered Covid-19 patients studied, 10 had no detectable neutralizing antibodies. Recovered patients at the other end of the spectrum had really high antibody levels. So though the company said the antibody levels induced by vaccine were as good as those generated by infection, there’s no real way to know what that comparison means. . . .”
8.–It is less than encouraging that Moderna disclosed that more relevant data will be disclosed in a report to be released in conjunction with NIAID: “ . . . . STAT asked Moderna for information on the antibody levels it used as a comparator. The response: That will be disclosed in an eventual journal article from NIAID, which is part of the National Institutes of Health. . . .”
9.–Ann Durbin was struck by the wording of Moderna’s release: “ . . . . Durbin was struck by the wording of the company’s statement, pointing to this sentence: ‘The levels of neutralizing antibodies at day 43 were at or above levels generally seen in convalescent sera.’ ‘I thought: Generally? What does that mean?’ Durbin said. Her question, for the time being, can’t be answered. . . .”
10.–Jack Rose commented on the opaque nature of Moderna’s release: “. . . . Rose said the company should disclose the information. ‘When a company like Moderna with such incredibly vast resources says they have generated SARS‑2 neutralizing antibodies in a human trial, I would really like to see numbers from whatever assay they are using,’ he said. . . .”
10.–To date, Moderna issues press releases, not papers that can be vetted by the scientific community: “ . . . . It doesn’t publish on its work in scientific journals. What is known has been disclosed through press releases. That’s not enough to generate confidence within the scientific community. ‘My guess is that their numbers are marginal or they would say more,’ Rose said about the company’s SARS‑2 vaccine, echoing a suspicion that others have about some of the company’s other work. ‘I do think it’s a bit of a concern that they haven’t published the results of any of their ongoing trials that they mention in their press release. They have not published any of that,’ Durbin noted. . . .”
After summarizing a highly technical article warning that of the possible consequences of introducing a SARS Cov‑2 vaccine that generates inadequately high levels of antibodies, we detail a 2016 STAT News article about Moderna highlights a number of areas of concern, given the speed and relatively opaque nature of the potential introduction of its Covid-19 vaccine.
The financing of the company by DARPA, and Moncef Slaoui’s joining with Four Star General Perna (elevated by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark A. Milley) are of additional concern.
1.–As of 2016, Moderna had the largest valuation of any private biotech firm and former employees felt that Moderna prized money over science. Note that, as will be reviewed later in the program, its stock has risen exponentially as a result of the injection of hundreds of millions of dollars. Bear in mind that Moderna has also been underwritten by DARPA. “ . . . . Moderna is worth more than any other private biotech in the US, and former employees said they felt that Bancel prized the company’s ever-increasing valuation, now approaching $5 billion, over its science. . . .”
2.–Moderna has maintained a culture of secrecy, which in 2016, applied to the first two products undergoing phase 1 trials: “ . . . . Moderna just moved its first two potential treatments — both vaccines — into human trials. In keeping with the culture of secrecy, though, executives won’t say which diseases the vaccines target, and they have not listed the studies on the public federal registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Listing is optional for Phase 1 trials, which are meant to determine if a drug is safe, but most companies voluntarily disclose their work. . . .”
3.–Protein therapy has been a driving economic and therapeutic factor in the pharmaceutical business: “ . . . . For decades, companies have endeavored to craft better and better protein therapies, leading to new treatments for cancer, autoimmune disorders, and rare diseases. Such therapies are costly to produce and have many limitations, but they’ve given rise to a multibillion-dollar industry. The anti-inflammatory Humira, the world’s top drug at $14 billion in sales a year, is a shining example of protein therapy. . . .”
4.–Moderna aims at doing an end run around that technology with the injection of mRNA (messenger RNA) or DNA. This is a risky technology: “ . . . . Moderna’s technology promised to subvert the whole field, creating therapeutic proteins inside the body instead of in manufacturing plants. The key: harnessing messenger RNA, or mRNA. . . . . It’s highly risky. Big pharma companies had tried similar work and abandoned it because it’s exceedingly hard to get RNA into cells without triggering nasty side effects. . . . .”
5.–CEO Bancel has maintained the company’s culture of secrecy: “ . . . . Under Bancel, Moderna has been loath to publish its work in Science or Nature, but enthusiastic to herald its potential on CNBC and CNN, taking part in segments on the world’s most disruptive companiesand the potential “cure for cancer.” . . .”
6.–Moderna had draconian attitude toward employees from its inception: “ . . . . From the beginning, Bancel made clear that Moderna’s science simply had to work. And that anyone who couldn’t make it work didn’t belong. The early Moderna was a chaotic, unpredictable workplace, according to former employees. One recalls finding himself out of a job when a quick-turnaround experiment failed to pan out. Another helped train a group of new hires only to realize they were his replacements. . . .”
7.–Joe Bolen exemplified the treatment Moderna meted out: “ . . . . Most stunning to employees was the abrupt departure of Joseph Bolen, who came aboard in 2013 to lead Moderna’s R&D efforts. Bolen was a big-name hire in biotech circles, an experienced chief scientific officer who had guided Millennium Pharmaceuticals to FDA approval for a blockbuster cancer drug. . . ‘No scientist in his right mind would leave that job unless there was something wrong with the science or the personnel,” said a person close to the company at the time.’ . . .”
8.–Bolen had company: “ . . . . Bolen wasn’t alone. Chief Information Officer John Reynders joined in 2013 to make Moderna what he called the world’s “first fully digital biotech,”only to step down a year later. Michael Morin, brought in to lead Moderna’s scientific efforts in cancer in 2014, lasted less than 18 months. As did Greg Licholai, hired in 2015 to direct the company’s projects in rare diseases. The latter two key leadership positions remain unfilled. . . .”
9.–The explanation of CFO Lorence Kim is less than reassuring from the standpoint of product safety and reliability: “ . . . . ‘We force everyone to grow with the company at unprecedented speed,’ Moderna Chief Financial Officer Lorence Kim said. ‘Some people grow with the company; others don’t.’ . . .”
10.–Beginning in 2013, Moderna partnered with a series of pharmaceutical giants, including AstraZeneca, which has been selected to develop a Covid-19 vaccine: “ . . . . That’s when Moderna — which had just 25 employees — signed a staggering $240 million partnership with UK pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca. It was the most money pharma had ever spent on drugs that had not yet been tested in humans. . . .”
11.–The firm has been lavishly capitalized: “ . . . . In early 2015, Moderna disclosed a $450 million financing round, the largest ever for a private biotech company. This month, the company broke its own record, raising another $474 million. . . . Though it has yet to reveal data from a single clinical trial, Moderna is now valued at $4.7 billion, according to Pitchbook. . . .”
12.–Initially, Moderna aimed at developing products that would be administered for a period of years: “ . . . . From the start, Moderna heralded its ability to produce proteins within cells, which could open up a world of therapeutic targets unreachable by conventional drugs. The most revolutionary treatments, which could challenge the multibillion-dollar market for protein therapy, would involve repeated doses of mRNA over many years, so a patient’s body continued to produce proteins to keep disease at bay. . . .”
13.–Instead of producing treatments that would be administered over a period of years, the company focused on vaccines: “ . . . . But Moderna’s first human trials aren’t so ambitious, focusing instead on the crowded field of vaccines, where the company has only been working since 2014. . . . The choice to prioritize vaccines came as a disappointment to many in the company, according to a former manager. The plan had been to radically disrupt the biotech industry, the manager said, so ‘why would you start with a clinical program that has very limited upside and lots of competition?’” . . . .”
14.–The answer to Moderna’s focus on vaccines may be due to issues of product safety: “ . . . Delivery — actually getting RNA into cells — has long bedeviled the whole field. On their own, RNA molecules have a hard time reaching their targets. They work better if they’re wrapped up in a delivery mechanism, such as nanoparticles made of lipids. But those nanoparticles can lead to dangerous side effects, especially if a patient has to take repeated doses over months or years. . . .”
15.–Vaccines will only administer mRNA at the time of vaccination, rather than over a long period of time: “ . . . . ‘I would say that mRNA is better suited for diseases where treatment for short duration is sufficiently curative, so the toxicities caused by delivery materials are less likely to occur,’ said Katalin Karikó, a pioneer in the field who serves as a vice president at BioNTech. . . That makes vaccines the lowest hanging fruit in mRNA, said Franz-Werner Haas, CureVac’s chief corporate officer. ‘From our point of view, it’s obvious why [Moderna] started there,’ he said.’ . . .”
16.–Moderna’s explanation for its focus on vaccines is not reassuring—the speed with which it can proceed to human trials. The firm’s secrecy has generated alarm: “ . . . . Moderna said it prioritized vaccines because they presented the fastest path to human trials, not because of setbacks with other projects. ‘The notion that [Moderna] ran into difficulties isn’t borne in reality,’ said Afeyan. But this is where Moderna’s secrecy comes into play: Until there’s published data, only the company and its partners know what the data show. Everyone outside is left guessing — and, in some cases, worrying that Moderna won’t live up to its hype. . . .”
17.–Moderna applies software and a business model derived from Tesla, Amazon and Uber: “ . . . . Moderna has pioneered an automated system modeled on the software Tesla uses to manage orders, Bancel said: Scientists simply enter the protein they want a cell to express, and testable mRNA arrives within weeks. . . . That has always been part of the plan, former employees said, pointing to Bancel’s fascination with the tech industry. Uber and Amazon were not the first to come up with their respective business ideas, but they were the ones that built enough scale to ward off competition. And Moderna is positioning itself to do the same in mRNA. . . .”
Moncef Slaoui’s optimistic statement on the Friday before the Monday announcement, presents important context for Moderna’s Monday announcement. That announcement moved markets based on inadequate data. “Operation Warp Speed” (headed by Slaoui) suggests that candidate Trump is very interested in those preliminary results as well.
Elizabeth Warren scored Slaoui’s conflict of interest–a consideration that will be discussed at length: ” . . . . Following Moncef Slaoui’s Friday appointment as a co-leader of the Warp Speed program, he’s set to sell about 155,000 shares in Moderna, according to press reports. They were worth an estimated $10 million Friday, but after Monday’s stock run-up on positive early data, they’re now valued at about $12.4 million. . . . Following Slaoui’s selection, Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted that it’s a ‘huge conflict of interest’ for him to keep the Moderna stock as he assumes the new role. She said he should ‘divest immediately.’ In a now-deleted tweet, Slaoui responded that there ‘is no conflict of interest, and there never has been,’ Business Insider reports. . . .”
Even after agreeing to sell his Moderna stock, Slaoui’s investments raise alarming questions–note that he is a “venture capitalist” and a longtime former executive at Glaxo-Smithkline:
1.–The circumstances of his appointment will permit him to avoid scrutiny: ” . . . . In agreeing to accept the position, Dr. Slaoui did not come on board as a government employee. Instead, he is on a contract, receiving $1 for his service. That leaves him exempt from federal disclosure rules that would require him to list his outside positions, stock holdings and other potential conflicts. And the contract position is not subject to the same conflict-of-interest laws and regulations that executive branch employees must follow. . . .”
2.–He will retain a great deal of Glaxo-Smithkline stock: ” . . . . He did not say how much his GSK shares were worth. When he left the company in 2017, he held about [500,000 in Western Print Edition] 240,000 shares and share equivalents, according to the drug company’s annual report and an analysis by the executive compensation firm Equilar. . . .”
3.–Further analysis of Slaoui’s position deepens concern about the integrity of the process: ” . . . . ‘This is basically absurd,’ said Virginia Canter, who is chief ethics counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. ‘It allows for no public scrutiny of his conflicts of interest.’ Ms. Canter also said federal law barred government contractors from supervising government employees. . . . Ms. Canter, a former ethics lawyer in the Obama and Clinton administrations, the Securities and Exchange Commission and other agencies, pointed out that GSK’s vaccine candidate with Sanofi could wind up competing with other manufacturers vying for government approval and support. ‘If he retains stock in companies that are investing in the development of a vaccine, and he’s involved in overseeing this process to select the safest vaccine to combat Covid-19, regardless of how wonderful a person he is, we can’t be confident of the integrity of any process in which he is involved,’ Ms. Canter said. In addition, his affiliation with Medicxi could complicate matters: Two of its investors are GSK and a division of Johnson & Johnson, which is also developing a potential vaccine. . . .”
Moderna stands to make billions of dollars if their vaccine goes to market:
1.–” . . . . What investors are betting on, for Moderna and others developing vaccines against the SARS-CoV‑2 virus, is that a third of the developed world’s population will get vaccinated every year. That could amount to a $10 billion annual business, at an estimated price of $30 per vaccination. . . .”
2.–” . . . . Morgan Stanley analysts this past weekend suggested that pricing might start at $5 to $10 a dose during this first pandemic crisis, then rise to a range of $13 to $30 for preventive doses in future years. But at BMO Capital Markets, analyst George Farmer speculated that Moderna could start charging $125 per treatment in the U.S. market and raise that price over time to $200. . . . ”
We close the program with a reminder of the extent to which federal funding drives the value of Moderna: ” . . . . ‘Instead of waiting for the data and then scaling up with manufacturing process … we can make as many doses as we can. We are doing both in parallel,’ he said. The company plans to hire up to 150 people to support the effort. Bancel said the company ‘couldn’t have done this’ without the funding commitment from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, which is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. . . .”
In FTR #‘s 1118 and 1122, we speculated at some length about the possibility that infecting the very healthy, superbly-conditioned individuals participating in the Military World Games in China might have been an excellent vehicle for spreading the virus around the world. Reports are now emerging of possible Covid-19 infection among athletes who participated at the games.
Now that West’s regime change campaign against China is now playing out in the middle of a global COVID-19 pandemic that threatens to strangle virtually all major economies at the same time far right governments are in power across the globe, perhaps it’s time to ask an unsettling question: Is collapsing the global economy and bankrupting major world powers for the purpose of pushing the world to the gold standard on the agenda on top of collapsing China? That’s what we’re going to explore in this post. It’s a highly speculative and we better hope it’s very wrong. But if it’s correct you better hope you have to gold. And guns. And whatever else is required to survive a social collapse because social collapse is what the far right has been hoping to see for decades and with far right governments in control around the globe in the middle of a global pandemic that is strangling the every economy we are now closer than ever to ‘achieving’ that nightmarish far right dream.
Recent Comments