Is it helpful to accuse Pfizer of promoting booster shot for just profit?

“That sounds to me like a money-making operation for Pfizer,” Trump, who was secretly vaccinated last January at the White House, told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. “Think of the money involved. An extra shot … How good a business is that? If you’re a pure businessman, you’d say, ‘you know what, let’s give them another shot,’ that’s another $10 billion of money coming in — the whole thing is crazy.”

That ought to help convince the hesitant folks.

To be fair, earlier in the interview he did endorse the vaccine in general:

“I recommend that people take it,” he said. “I also recommend that you have your freedoms to do what you want to do.”

Trump added: “Now one thing: When you have the vaccine, people that do — and it’s a very small number relatively, but people that do get it — get better much quicker. And it’s very important to know. They don’t get nearly as sick, and they get better. [Sen.] Lindsey Graham is an example. He said, if I didn’t have this vaccine, I would have died.”

So at the goading of FOX, he accuses Pfizer of phony boosterism of the booster shots.

13 thoughts on “Is it helpful to accuse Pfizer of promoting booster shot for just profit?

  1. Wow. the left and WAPO just won’t stop politicizing COVID.

    For months, the MSM has demanded Trump endorse the vaccines, while ignoring the many times he already has, and then when he very forcefully and directly encourages vaccination, all you can do is mine the interview for a speculation to criticize.

    Nearly the whole thing was the endorsement you have been demanding, and you can bet the MSM will ignore the call for vaccination to focus on the speculation on motives.

    That is truly sick.


  2. Uh, try again.

    Telling everyone that the booster shot is profit motivated is truly sick. Disgusting and despicable, to boot.

    Getting Trump to endorse the vaccine should be a no brainer. Instead he dribbles out the endorsement occasionally in cryptic and spaced out, sporadic and rare interviews over 8 months. EIGHT MONTHS!

    There are people who live and die for Trump and if he tells them the lie that the vaccine was lifetime and the booster is for profit, that is so beyond the pale as to boggle the mind.

    Time to call a spade by its real name, folks.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. RE: “Wow. the left and WAPO just won’t stop politicizing COVID.”

    It’s a problem. In-group/out-group psychology gets in the way of sober discussion.

    As I understand it, the durability of vaccine-induced immunity has been an open question since the development of the current Covid products began. We now seem to be learning that vaccine-induced immunity is not as durable as decision-makers early on may have hoped.

    OK, so you pays your money and you takes your chance. The political question now isn’t Pfizer’s profits, but the credibility of our public health policy system.


    1. Pfizer’s profits were never an issue until it was brought by FOX and Trump.

      I don’t recall any credible source saying that the vaccine was lifetime.

      I think the credibility of our public health system was never the big problem until the politicizing of masks, distancing and vaccines. If you have a group of Americans who have been convinced the government can do nothing right, ever, and certain media have made it their life’s ambition to tear it down, there are consequences.

      You reap, sow, etc.

      Meanwhile, bring in the portable morgues.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “Pfizer’s profits were never an issue until it was brought by FOX and Trump.”

        I think you are missing the point of Trump’s comments. He isn’t bashing Pfizer. He’s describing the risk assessment associated with Pfizer’s vaccine. Specifically, the technical risk of harming human health was very low, but the social/economic risk of rolling out a non-durable vaccine was very high. Neither of those risks ever would affect Pfizer.


        1. … ‘you know what, let’s give them another shot,’ that’s another $10 billion of money coming in — the whole thing is crazy.”

          This sounds more like a con man spotting another con he wishes he could get a piece of.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. It sounds to me like an experienced businessman pointing out the disadvantageous incentives that operate within the “medical-industrial complex.”


          1. Disadvantageous incentives? You mean like guaranteeing money in advance? OWS was a success, no?

            I suppose Trump just spewed some crap without thinking except that he probably wished he was getting a piece of the action.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Well, Alabama’s ICU beds are full.
    Eventually, triage will have to favor the few vaccinated over the unvaccinated in the same way smokers and alcoholics don’t get organ transplants.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. There is a priority listing for organ transplant that includes age, habits/lifestyles, and existing conditions. I’m sure Doc can satisfy your incredulity. The fact that on occasion, people whose former lifestyles and wealth caused the problem is fodder for the press.

        But yes, all things being equal with two persons vying for a single organ, being an alcoholic would likely lower ones score.

        A suyvey paper:

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Money talks.

        Organ transplant policies can be highest bidder or most effective based on age, health, lifestyle, etc.

        Reality is highest bidder in many cases.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s