Discover more from Rounding the Earth Newsletter
Is the Pharmafia Funding Terrorism in the Middle East?
The Pharmafia, Part 1
Back in the days before the Plandemonium, the Washington Post sometimes reported on the most abominable behaviors of the Pharmafia:
The government office was so thoroughly infested that in 2007 Gen. David Petraeus, then in command of U.S. forces in Iraq, admitted Sadrists had “effectively hijacked the Ministry of Health.”
And yet at the same time, American and international pharmaceutical companies were regularly doing business with it.
A lawsuit that has just hit the federal court system claims that these drug giants were not only filling purchasing orders but offering substantial kickbacks and free medication, all while knowing they were in business with a group of terrorists engaged in violence against U.S. interests and Americans. Such payments, the lawsuit claims, were violations of the Anti-Terrorism Act.
You're probably wondering which pharmaceutical companies would fund the other side of a military conflict in the Middle East.
The corporate defendants include subsidiaries of the largest medical brands in the world: AstraZeneca, General Electric, Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer and Roche. The businesses “obtained lucrative contracts from that ministry by making corrupt payments to the terrorists who ran it,” the complaint argues. “Those payments aided and abetted terrorism in Iraq by directly financing an Iran-backed, Hezbollah-trained militia that killed or injured thousands of Americans.”
You should now also be wondering whether or not Signals Intelligence agents reported all this to their superiors, or whether the U.S. government officials knew about all this from other sources. I'll get to that…
Somehow, the pharmaceutical giants managed to get the lawsuit dismissed in mid-2020, but, as The Defender reports, it was revived again earlier this year:
A 2017 lawsuit alleging five pharmaceutical companies helped finance terror attacks against U.S. service members and other Americans in Iraq during the “War on Terror” was unanimously reinstated and remanded by a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals.
The lawsuit against the five companies in question — Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Roche and GE Healthcare — was dismissed in July 2020 by a federal district court in Washington, D.C. before being reinstated last week.
The lawsuit claims the five companies regularly paid bribes, including free drugs and medical devices, to officials in Iraq’s Ministry of Health between 2005 and 2011, in their efforts to secure drug contracts.
In turn, the suit alleges, these companies’ contracts with the Iraqi health ministry helped “fund terrorism” perpetrated by a Shiite militia that killed Americans during that period.
What the Pfizer is Going On?
I don't know. But I know a little.
A few months ago I spoke with one of the anonymous witnesses in the case. What I was told was that at least some of the motivation of the pharmaceutical companies was to create hospitals. Think about that for a moment: In order to set out Western style hospitals around the Middle East, pharmaceutical companies were willing to fund groups that were fighting armed conflicts against, and often killing, U.S. soldiers.
Why would a hospital system in a Middle Eastern nation be worth the money, and risk of even more money (from court judgments, if caught), not to mention an attack on the U.S. military? This is not exactly an industry overflowing with profitable business models. In particular, the human genome project failed to deliver as many low hanging fruits as expected. It turns out that most diseases are complex, with influences from thousands of genes, with a small handful due to localized
Source:Kelvin Scott/ EndpointsNews
Another implication of the operations run in the Middle East is that those who control the program use Western (mostly American) capital markets to fund their operations. Consider the Financing Activities section that begins on page 104 of this court filing. It details the creation of a stock buyback program which can be used to buoy the stock price at will. At moments when insiders want to sell stock, they can press a button to spend corporate cash to push up stock values first, but can buy less than expected in order to allow the price to sink lower than the market would have expected given the potential scale of the buyback represented.
In this case, hardly any stock was bought back, perhaps keeping the price lower [prior to the plandemonium?] for insiders who would want to buy. The amount of the buyback exercised was around 0.02% of the buyback limit that the Plan outlined.
In fact, the insiders got a chance to take profits and rebuy before all those vaccine deals were put into place. By then, they may have had as much as $4.5T of Wall Street money to back their plays.
More Than Just Regulatory Capture
Trying to decipher the information about this that currently remains online (for now) is not easy. Even after talking with a former DOJ attorney and one of the witnesses in the case, I have trouble interpreting what this even means,
Pfizer has joined three of its Big Pharma peers in a Department of Justice probe examining allegations that the companies paid bribes to a terrorist-run health ministry in Iraq.
The Justice Department's inquiries stem from a lawsuit, filed last fall, in which veterans and their families accused Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Roche and Johnson & Johnson of paying bribes to win business from the Iraqi ministry of health at a time when the ministry was controlled by terrorists.
Is that like when I "join" with the IRS in my own audit? Like it's a cooperative process, not an adversarial one?
Is this like when Pfizer "joined" in the request by Aaron Siri to have its COVID-19 quasi-vaccine data released by the FDA?
It probably looks good if I join with the investigation into whether or not I committed a homicide (if I'm ever so accused)? Or can I not do that the way that the Pharmafia can because I'm not directly funding the governance mechanisms standing between me and that "rule of law" stuff?
A Humble Question: What's the Right Word?
As I said, I don't know all of what's going on. My information deficit is wide, like yours. But I know a little history.
What I know is that war is a highly profitable enterprise.
As Fierce Pharma points out, pharmaceutical giants have been engaged in extralegal activity all over the world, lately:
Over the past decade-plus, a number of drugmakers have settled allegations of bribery and kickbacks overseas, including in Iraq, some of them related to the United Nations’ Oil for Food program. In 2011, J&J agreed to pay $70 million to settle claims that it bribed officials in Greece, Poland and Romania, and paid kickbacks to the former Iraqi government under the U.N. program. In 2014, China ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $490 million for its role in a high-profile bribery scandal.
In what business might the Pharmafia engage to make it worth paying hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars in fines at a time?
Is that even the right question? The goal of business—as in a positive feedback loop in which the resulting system is healthier then wealthier than its initial conditions—doesn't seem to fit any model that would have saved the pharmaceutical industry from what appeared to be its impending fiscal collapse.
On the other hand, the business model of war is highly profitable without the need to sustain a positive feedback loop. Perhaps the pharmaceutical industry is busy working with the underbellies of some militaries to create conflict—like a side gig that sucks in taxpayer dollars without making anyone healthier, and in fact, while making some people dead as a byproduct. And if "mafia" is not the word to describe those who use organized violence to achieve profit without a value-driven feedback loop, what would be?