WHO meets big pharma in November, 2004.

In November, 2004, a range of vaccine manufacturers met with representatives of the WHO. And, in an ironic twist, in my mind this clears one particular pharmaceutical company of committing the most egregious crimes.

The topic of the meet was pandemic preparedness, and where they came in — vaccines. Apart from the sporadic comment relating to surveillance, it’s all about one safe and effective thing. Money.

They wanted liability protection, money for R&D, money for long-term contracts, and regulatory complacency… … and they want flu vaccine uptake increased, so that they can build up capacity with the purpose of switching across should a pandemic arise.

They did request the WHO play the coordinator, but again, this is all centred around money. It’s the only thing which matters.

They also uniformly agreed that the public should do more to pay for expenses, and that governments should engage in long-term strategic contracts… … thereby landing them guaranteed incomes, regardless of whether a pandemic struck or not.

Most questionable thing in terms of ethics, they requested governments pushed for increase in vaccination uptake. Argument being it would allow the additional capacity required should a pandemic required. This is pretty bad, honestly, but ultimately, it’s just about money.

The issue of intellectual property also came up, and public-private-partnerships. But you catch the drift. Money, money, Money.

And - of course - they wanted a liability shield. Which, of course, they received. In fact, this document being their wish list, Santa certainly delivered. They pretty much received everything they requested. Sure, some of the money might have been used to bribe in return.

They even requested an accelerated pathway of delivery. As you would, having a liability shield. Why would you care?

So, you ask - who attended this meeting? For a change, we’re in luck. That’s listed, too.

Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, Aventis, Merck, and a range of other, smaller competitors.

Do you notice the exception here? No Pfizer.

A number of representatives from nations with vaccine makers also were in attendance, and in that regard, there’s a very interesting name in official capacity

Theresa Tam.

But when we wrap it all up, and consider relative to the forum in 2003 where ‘One Health’ was born...

… yet, its yielded 2005 document suddenly saw the inclusion of Pfizer as a sponsor, it appears highly likely that this was entirely for profit’s sake. I mean, they’d been left out of the November meeting with the WHO, after all.

And this - to me - means we can scratch them off the list in regards to the surveillance state. That was barely a consideration.