DrMaddVibe
4 years ago
Unmitigated POW-AH!!!!

Pfizer’s Power



Download the full report 941.6 KB

Introduction
1. Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.
2. Pfizer Controls Donations.
3. Pfizer Secured an “IP Waiver” for Itself.
4. Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret.
5. Pfizer Can Go After State Assets.
6. Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions.
A Better Way
References

In February, Pfizer was accused of “bullying” governments in COVID vaccine negotiations in a groundbreaking story by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.[1] A government official at the time noted, “Five years in the future when these confidentiality agreements are over you will learn what really happened in these negotiations.”[2]

Public Citizen has identified several unredacted Pfizer contracts that describe the outcome of these negotiations. The contracts offer a rare glimpse into the power one pharmaceutical corporation has gained to silence governments, throttle supply, shift risk and maximize profits in the worst public health crisis in a century. We describe six examples from around the world below.[3]

Table 1: Select Pfizer Contracts Reviewed[4]
Purchaser Date Type Doses Price Per Dose Total Cost
Albania Draft[5] Draft Definitive Agreement 500,000 $12 $6 million
Brazil 03/15/21[6] Definitive Agreement 100 million $10 $1 billion
Colombia 02/02/21[7] Definitive Agreement 10 million $12 $120 million
Chile 12/01/20[8] Definitive Agreement (Redacted) 10 million Redacted Redacted
Dom. Rep. 10/29/20[9] Binding Term Sheet[10] 8 million $12 $96 million
Euro. Comm 11/20/20[11] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement 200 million $18.6[12] $3.7 billion
Peru 17/9/20[13] Binding Term Sheet 10 million $12 $120 million
U.S. 21/07/20[14] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) 100 million $19.5 $1.95 billion
U.K. 12/10/20[15] Custom Advance Purchase Agreement (Redacted) 30 million Redacted Redacted

Pfizer’s demands have generated outrage around the world, slowing purchase agreements and even pushing back the delivery schedule of vaccines.[16] If similar terms are included as a condition to receive doses, they may threaten President Biden’s commitment to donate 1 billion vaccine doses.[17]

High-income countries have enabled Pfizer’s power through a favorable system of international intellectual property protection.[18] High-income countries have an obligation to rein in that monopoly power. The Biden administration, for example, can call on Pfizer to renegotiate existing commitments and pursue a fairer approach in the future. The administration can further rectify the power imbalance by sharing the vaccine recipe, under the Defense Production Act, to allow multiple producers to expand vaccine supplies.[19] It can also work to rapidly secure a broad waiver of intellectual property rules (TRIPS waiver) at the World Trade Organization.[20] A wartime response against the virus demands nothing less.
1. Pfizer Reserves the Right to Silence Governments.

In January, the Brazilian government complained that Pfizer was insisting on contractual terms in negotiations that were “unfair and abusive.”[21] The government pointed to five terms that it found problematic, ranging from a sovereign immunity waiver on public assets to a lack of penalties for Pfizer if deliveries were late. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism soon published a scathing story on Pfizer’s vaccine negotiations.[22]

Less than two months later, the Brazilian government accepted a contract with Pfizer that contains most of the same terms that the government once deemed unfair.[23] Brazil waived sovereign immunity; imposed no penalties on Pfizer for late deliveries; agreed to resolve disputes under a secret private arbitration under the laws of New York; and broadly indemnified Pfizer for civil claims.[24]

The contract also contains an additional term not included in other Latin American agreements[25] reviewed by Public Citizen: The Brazilian government is prohibited from making “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of [the] Agreement” or commenting on its relationship with Pfizer without the prior written consent of the company.[26] Pfizer gained the power to silence Brazil.

Brazil is not alone. A similar nondisclosure provision is contained in the Pfizer contract with the European Commission and the U.S. government.[27] In those cases, however, the obligation applies to both parties.

For example, neither Pfizer nor the U.S. government can make “any public announcement concerning the existence, subject matter or terms of this Agreement, the transactions contemplated by it, or the relationship between the Pfizer and the Government hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other.”[28] The contract contains some exceptions for disclosures required by law. It is not clear from the public record whether Pfizer has elected to prohibit the U.S. from making any statements thus far. The E.C. cannot include in any announcement or disclosure the price per dose, the Q4 2020 volumes, or information that would be material to Pfizer without the consent of Pfizer.[29]
2. Pfizer Controls Donations.

Pfizer tightly controls supply.[30] The Brazilian government, for example, is restricted from accepting Pfizer vaccine donations from other countries or buying Pfizer vaccines from others without Pfizer’s permission.[31] The Brazilian government also is restricted from donating, distributing, exporting, or otherwise transporting the vaccine outside Brazil without Pfizer’s permission.[32]

The consequences of noncompliance can be severe. If Brazil were to accept donated doses without Pfizer’s permission, it would be considered an “uncurable material breach” of their agreement, allowing Pfizer to immediately terminate the agreement.[33] Upon termination, Brazil would be required to pay the full price for any remaining contracted doses.[34]
3. Pfizer Secured an “IP Waiver” for Itself.

The CEO of Pfizer, Albert Bourla, has emerged as a strident defender of intellectual property in the pandemic. He called a voluntary World Health Organization effort to share intellectual property to bolster vaccine production “nonsense” and “dangerous.”[35] He said President Biden’s decision to back the TRIPS waiver on intellectual property was “so wrong.”[36] “IP, which is the blood of the private sector, is what brought a solution to this pandemic and it is not a barrier right now,” claims Bourla.[37]

But, in several contracts, Pfizer seems to recognize the risk posed by intellectual property to vaccine development, manufacturing, and sale. The contracts shift responsibility for any intellectual property infringement that Pfizer might commit to the government purchasers. As a result, under the contract, Pfizer can use anyone’s intellectual property it pleases—largely without consequence.

At least four countries are required “to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Pfizer” from and against any and all suits, claims, actions, demands, damages, costs, and expenses related to vaccine intellectual property.[38] For example, if another vaccine maker sued Pfizer for patent infringement in Colombia, the contract requires the Colombian government to foot the bill. At Pfizer’s request, Colombia is required to defend the company (i.e., take control of legal proceedings.)[39] Pfizer also explicitly says that it does not guarantee that its product does not violate third-party IP, or that it needs additional licenses.

Pfizer takes no responsibility in these contracts for its potential infringement of intellectual property. In a sense, Pfizer has secured an IP waiver for itself. But internationally, Pfizer is fighting similar efforts to waive IP barriers for all manufacturers.[40]
4. Private Arbitrators, not Public Courts, Decide Disputes in Secret.

What happens if the United Kingdom cannot resolve a contractual dispute with Pfizer? A secret panel of three private arbitrators—not a U.K court—is empowered under the contract to make the final decision.[41] The arbitration is conducted under the Rules of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). Both parties are required to keep everything secret:

The Parties agree to keep confidential the existence of the arbitration, the arbitral proceedings, the submissions made by the Parties and the decisions made by the arbitral tribunal, including its awards, except as required by Law and to the extent not already in the public domain.[42]

The Albania draft contract and Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Dominican Republic, and Peru agreements require the governments to go further, with contractual disputes subject to ICC arbitration applying New York law.[43]

While ICC arbitration involving states is not uncommon, disputes involving high-income countries and/or pharmaceuticals appear to be relatively rare.[44] In 2012, 80% of state disputes were from Sub-Saharan Africa, Central and West Asia, and Central and Eastern Europe.[45] The most common state cases were about the construction and operation of facilities.[46] In 2020, 34 states were involved in ICC arbitrations.[47] The nature of state disputes is not clear, but only between 5 to 7% of all new ICC cases, including those solely between private parties, were related to health and pharmaceuticals.[48]

Private arbitration reflects an imbalance of power. It allows pharmaceutical corporations like Pfizer to bypass domestic legal processes. This consolidates corporate power and undermines the rule of law.
5. Pfizer Can Go After State Assets.

The decisions reached by the secret arbitral panels described above can be enforced in national courts.[49] The doctrine of sovereign immunity can sometimes, however, protect states from corporations seeking to enforce and execute arbitration awards.

Pfizer required Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, and Peru to waive sovereign immunity.[50] In the case of Brazil, Chile and Colombia, for example, the government “expressly and irrevocably waives any right of immunity which either it or its assets may have or acquire in the future” to enforce any arbitration award (emphasis added).[51] For Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, this includes “immunity against precautionary seizure of any of its assets.”[52]

Arbitral award enforcement presents complex questions of law that depend on the physical location and type of state asset.[53] But the contract allows Pfizer to request that courts use state assets as a guarantee that Pfizer will be paid an arbitral award and/or use the assets to compensate Pfizer if the government does not pay.[54] For example, in U.S. courts, these assets could include foreign bank accounts, foreign investments, and foreign commercial property, including the assets of state-owned enterprises like airlines and oil companies.[55]
6. Pfizer Calls the Shots on Key Decisions.

What happens if there are vaccine supply shortages? In the Albania draft contract and the Brazil and Colombia agreement, Pfizer will decide adjustments to the delivery schedule based on principles the corporation will decide. Albania, Brazil, and Colombia “shall be deemed to agree to any revision.”[56]

Some governments have pushed back on Pfizer’s unilateral authority for other decisions. In South Africa, Pfizer wanted to have the “sole discretion to determine additional terms and guarantees for us to fulfill the indemnity obligations.”[57] South Africa deemed this “too risky” and a “potential risk to [their] assets and fiscus.”[58] After delays, Pfizer reportedly conceded to remove this “problematic term.”[59]

But others have not been as successful. As a condition to entering into the agreement, the Colombian government is required to “demonstrate, in a manner satisfactory to Suppliers, that Suppliers and their affiliates will have adequate protection, as determined in Suppliers’ sole discretion” (emphasis added) from liability claims.[60] Colombia is required to certify to Pfizer the value of the contingent obligations (i.e., potential future liability), and to start appropriating funds to cover the contingent obligations, according to a contribution program.[61]

Pfizer’s ability to control key decisions reflects the power imbalance in vaccine negotiations. Under the vast majority of contracts, Pfizer’s interests come first.
A Better Way

Pfizer’s dominance over sovereign countries poses fundamental challenges to the pandemic response. Governments can push back. The U.S. government, in particular, can exercise the leverage it holds over Pfizer to require a better approach. Empowering multiple manufacturers to produce the vaccine via technology transfer and a TRIPS waiver can rein in Pfizer’s power. Public health should come first.

https://www.citizen.org/article/pfizers-power/#_ftn14 

Data that's fit for FOIA!
View All Posts by User
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
4 years ago
So you're not getting the shot then?
View All Posts by User
ZRX1200
4 years ago
I was watching a Paul J Watson video while working tonight and he ran a hilarious montage of MSM outlets announcing “brought to you by….” Segments by Pfizer…..it was hilarious.
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
I love Watson's video's, he really exposes the absurdity of the ruling class and pisses off their progressive followers.
View All Posts by User
bgz
  • bgz
  • Herf-A-Holic
4 years ago
Fomo on pfizer is real...

Bet Hockey Dad had it.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago

FDA Admits MORE Serious Adverse Effects From Pfizer Vaccine ‘May Become Apparent’ With Widespread Use
'Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use'


A Fact Sheet for Vaccine Providers published on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) website admits that “Additional adverse reactions, some of which may be serious, may become apparent with more widespread use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” The Fact Sheet was issued in response to the FDA granting an emergency use authorization for the Pfizer vaccine for people aged 12 and older. The Fact Sheet also notes that the Pfizer vaccine carries risk of the heart conditions myocarditis and pericarditis in addition to numerous other ailments that have been reported in clinical trials, and that “immunocompromised persons…may have a diminished immune response to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” Recent former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb (pictured above) is now on the board of directors of Pfizer. A contingent of recent Pfizer workers who serve on an FDA advisory committee are trying to get the FDA to authorize a Pfizer vaccine for children aged 5 to 11.

The fact sheet for the vaccine for people aged 12 and up is also published on the PFIZER LABELING website and it states: “Postmarketing data demonstrate increased risks of myocarditis and pericarditis, particularly within 7 days following the second dose. The observed risk is higher among males under 40 years of age than among females and older males. The observed risk is highest in males 12 through 17 years of age. Although some cases required intensive care support, available data from short-term follow-up suggest that most individuals have had resolution of symptoms with conservative management. Information is not yet available about potential long-term sequelae.”


“Immunocompromised persons, including individuals receiving immunosuppressant therapy, may have a diminished immune response to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine,” according to the Fact Sheet promoted by the FDA.

https://nationalfile.com/fda-admits-more-serious-adverse-effects-from-pfizer-vaccine-may-become-apparent-with-widespread-use/ 
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago

I was watching a Paul J Watson video while working tonight and he ran a hilarious montage of MSM outlets announcing “brought to you by….” Segments by Pfizer…..it was hilarious.

ZRX1200 wrote:




Then you'll just love this...


FDA Committee Members Reviewing Pfizer Vaccine For Children Have Worked For Pfizer, Have Big Pfizer Connections



This Is A Staggering Conflict of Interest

The FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee is holding a virtual meeting Tuesday October 26 to discuss authorizing a Pfizer-BioNTech Coronavirus vaccine for children between the ages of 5 to 11 years old.

This committee has a lot of sway with the FDA and their findings will be relevant, considering the Biden administration is getting ready to ship vaccines to elementary schools and California has already mandated the vaccine for schoolchildren pending federal authorization.

But the meeting roster shows that numerous members of the committee and temporary voting members have worked for Pfizer or have major connections to Pfizer.

Members include a former vice president of Pfizer Vaccines, a recent Pfizer consultant, a recent Pfizer research grant recipient, a man who mentored a current top Pfizer vaccine executive, a man who runs a center that gives out Pfizer vaccines, the chair of a Pfizer data group, a guy who was proudly photographed taking a Pfizer vaccine, and numerous people who are already on the record supporting Coronavirus vaccines for children. Meanwhile, recent FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb is on Pfizer’s board of directors.

HERE’S THE MEETING ROSTER: Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee October 26, 2021 Meeting Draft Roster.

It's almost like the Weather Channel during a weather catastrophe tossing it back to ads for Home Depot and Lowe's! "This is Baldy McWindbreaker with your hurricane destroying the coastal shoreline cities of the Eastern seaboard report...get all you preparedness gear at Home Depot. Home Depot has low credit rates on all new credit card applications...Chet back to you at the News Desk"
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
Almost like, but not exactly alike. The Weather Channel / Home Depot and Lowes arrangement isn't the corporatist revolving door of Big Government and Big Business as in the cozy relationship of Pfizer/FDA.
View All Posts by User
DrMaddVibe
4 years ago
Pfizer raises Covid-19 vaccine sales forecast to $36bn for 2021


US drugmaker expects to manufacture 3bn doses of vaccine with BioNTech this year

The US drugmaker Pfizer has lifted its 2021 forecast for revenues from its Covid vaccine to $36bn (£26.3bn), and forecast another $29bn sales next year after it started shipping booster jabs and shots for children.

The Covid jab, called Comirnaty and developed with Germany’s BioNTech, contributed $13bn of revenues in the three months to 30 September. That was more than half of Pfizer’s total revenues of $24bn in the quarter, which rose 134% from a year earlier. In the first six months of the year, Corminaty revenues were $11.3bn.

Pfizer, which shares profits on the Covid vaccine evenly with BioNTech, raised its 2021 forecast for Corminaty sales from $33.5bn in July, as it expects to deliver 2.3bn doses this year. Together with BioNTech, it continues to expect to manufacture 3bn doses by the end of December, although not all of them will be delivered by then. For next year, it has so far agreed contracts for 1.7bn doses.

The jab was the first to gain approval for emergency use in the US for adults last year, and more recently for children and booster shots.

Together with the US biotech firm Moderna, Pfizer accounts for the lion’s share of the pharma industry’s global revenues from Covid vaccines.

Many western countries including the US, UK and Germany have started giving third booster shots to elderly and vulnerable people. However, booster jabs are controversial because in low-income countries only 3.7% of people have received at least one dose of a Covid vaccine. About 7.1bn doses have been administered globally, and nearly half the world’s population has received at least one jab.

The jump in Covid vaccine revenues prompted Pfizer to lift its overall sales and earnings predictions. It now expects to make total revenues of up to $82bn this year, and underlying earnings a share of $4.13 to $4.18, compared with its previous forecast of $3.95 to $4.05.

Pfizer faced fresh criticism from groups such as Amnesty International. The campaign group Global Justice Now accused Pfizer of “making a killing” out of “the most lucrative medicine ever produced,” while “most of the world has been locked out of this vaccine”.

Its director, Nick Dearden, said: “Just 1% of Pfizer’s supplies have been sold to the international distribution mechanism Covax, as the company has put sales of third and fourth doses in wealthy markets ahead of selling doses to where they’re most needed. This will undoubtedly prolong the pandemic.”

Responding to criticism, Pfizer’s chief executive, Albert Bourla, said poorer countries and organisations such as Covax needed to place orders, at a heavily discounted price, adding: “We remain on track to achieve our goal of delivering at least 2bn doses to low- and middle-income countries by the end of 2022 – at least 1bn to be delivered this year and 1bn next year.”

Bourla made a bold promise in June, saying that should the need arise for a new Covid vaccine, the company could develop one within 100 days.

He was referring to the possible emergence of an “escape variant” – a strain of Sars-CoV-2 that evades the immunity provided by current vaccines and previous infections.

Other companies, such as Moderna and AstraZeneca, are also preparing for the emergence of new strains by updating their current vaccines to match known variants such as delta, and testing them on these strains. These dress rehearsals are designed to even out kinks in the processes so the firms can move faster if an “escape variant” emerges for which current jabs do not work, Nature reported recently.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/nov/02/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-sales-2021-biontech 


Wait....what was that last part???

Vaccinations...



:-"
View All Posts by User
HockeyDad
4 years ago
Escape Variant!?

[argh]

We’re all dead!
View All Posts by User
MACS
4 years ago




I can't find the one where he points out half the news shows on CNN, MSDNC, ABC, CBS, NBC... brought to you by... Pfizer.

No skin in the game, right? Only sh*tloads of ad revenue, so it is their jobs to promote the vaccine and make their sponsors money.
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
Pfizer Produces Creepy Vaccination Propaganda Video Targeting Kids – Reminder, Only 27 Percent of Parents Comfortable With This Political Vaccination

November 3, 2021 | Sundance

Before getting to a seriously deranged propaganda commercial presented by Pfizer, let me first outline some context.

Modern Democrats and leftists -writ large- celebrate childless families. Modern Democrats advocate for not having children and enjoying the freedom that comes from a childless life.

Democrats promote abortion even at the last moments before natural birth (ie. #ShoutYourAbortion), and consider children to be “anchors” (Obama’s term) that stop people from enjoying a productive life focused on professional advancement.

Everything in the expressed policies of the modern Democrats is about not having children or becoming parents. Sure they talk about children, but only from the perspective of political benefit. Children are a point of advocacy for them; yet most influential modern leftists do not have children.

Democrats and leftists also claim not having children is the most environmentally responsible conduct. They intentionally erode the institution of marriage, and inside their policies they advocate for the government to replace two parent households. Single parenting is supported by funding and direct subsidy; and the ability to be disconnected from direct childcare and parental responsibility is part of their platform. The state replaces the role of parent.

More...

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2021/11/03/pfizer-produces-creepy-vaccination-propaganda-video-targeting-kids-reminder-only-27-percent-of-parents-comfortable-with-this-political-vaccination/ 

View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
That's right kiddies, tell your parents you want to be a SUPERHERO!

Creepy Pfizer Ad Tells Kids they are “Superheroes” for Taking Jab, Ignores Injuries of Others

The multi-billion dollar pharma giant with an incredibly tainted past, who has seen exponential profits during the pandemic as a result of taxpayers being forced to pay for the jab, has also enjoyed billions in taxpayer dollars to advertise said jab. The windfall of profits realized from vaccinating adults quickly turned the company’s sights to children as their customer base waned. Despite children facing a near zero chance of dying from COVID-19, the FDA jumped on board and quickly approved Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine for children ages 5-11.

After spending billions in taxpayer funded advertisements to convince adults to take the jab, Pfizer launched a new ad this week, which seemingly targets their new customer base — children. The company held back nothing and referred to children who got the vaccine as part of the experiment as “superheroes” with “superpowers”

More with Superhero video's...

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/pfizer-superheroes/ 

View All Posts by User
Brewha
4 years ago
I heard that Pfizer also created the viral myth of Trickle Down.

Many are still effected to this day…..
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago

I heard that Pfizer also created the viral myth of Trickle Down.

Many are still effected to this day…..

Brewha wrote:



Your hero President Poopy Pants said this morning “I’m so tired of trickle-down economic theory, I’m trickled out.” which is just part of the usual mindless sloganeering of the left like "Trickle-down economics has never worked. It's time to grow the economy from the bottom up and middle out." Whatever the frank that means.

Biden should call his economic policy "Tinkle Down Economics", in essence as true Keynsians believe, yellow showers of wealth rain down by government spending (which will be euphemistically called "investments") to raise the lowly proles from the bottom up and the middle out. That's the theory anyway.

That's essentially the same as gubment Covid policy.

View All Posts by User
MACS
4 years ago
Can we stop calling it a vaccine?

View All Posts by User
BuckyB93
4 years ago
There is too much political, professional, and monetary equity involved to back track now and admit that maybe, just maybe, the Emperor has no clothes.

Where are all the super spreader ground zero epicenters every Monday night.. Thurs night... Saturday... Sunday when 10's of thousands of people are all huddled together screaming, cheering, high fiveing while they attend a college or NFL game?

But mask up before you ride the bus or get on a plane, before you go into the library, before you see a movie, before you eat at a restaurant. Keep your "vaccine" passport handy because without it, you might not be allowed to do any of the above.

While we're at it, lets inject the kids with the "vaccine" that doesn't protect you from catching the bug or help from spreading the bug but... gotta dose them early even though they have essentially zero risk of dying even if they if they catch the bug.

Common sense and routine hygiene - stuff that we were taught when we were potty trained is probably as effective, if not more, than the vaccine (no I don't have facts or a source to back this statement up).
View All Posts by User
MACS
4 years ago

I heard that Pfizer also created the viral myth of Trickle Down.

Many are still effected to this day…..

Brewha wrote:



So if you got the shot and it works, why the booster? If you got the booster... and it works, why you worried about anyone else?

If the survival rate of those who catch it is 98.2% (spoiler, it's higher), why are you worried about it?

Why is it necessary to change the fkn definition of "vaccine"?

Are you so obtuse you can't see the forest through the trees?

Rhetorical questions, of course.
View All Posts by User
RayR
4 years ago
Brewha was trying to convince us of the Faucian Tinkle Down Theory of the so-called "vaccination".
View All Posts by User
Brewha
4 years ago

So if you got the shot and it works, why the booster? If you got the booster... and it works, why you worried about anyone else?

If the survival rate of those who catch it is 98.2% (spoiler, it's higher), why are you worried about it?

Why is it necessary to change the fkn definition of "vaccine"?

Are you so obtuse you can't see the forest through the trees?

Rhetorical questions, of course.

MACS wrote:


In fairness MACS, I think we have covered this before. We both have a very different relationship with science and social responsibility.

You put no credence in the findings and advice of medical professionals. You don’t trust them, feel they have an ax to grind. I see it the other way.

You put personal FREEDOM (!) over social responsibility. I see that differently. Hell, you think that 750,000 American deaths is just a small percentage - so who cares - right?

I have no idea of what you are talking about with the definition of “vaccine”. But I’ll bet you don’t trust Websters on the subject.





Here is another fun difference for you and I to celebrate our diversity:
I would have said “so myopic that you can’t see the forest for the trees”.
Because I am not sure how being dull effects ones sight…..

Even more funny, I sometimes respond to rhetoric.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com