mRNA vaccine maker Moderna has backpedaled on a January plan to charge $110 to $130 per dose of Covid-19 vaccine (up from $26 per dose for booster shots), and is now promising that people won’t have to pay for the jab once the US Government stops buying shots.

“Moderna remains committed to ensuring that people in the United States will have access to our COVID-19 vaccines regardless of ability to pay,” the company said in a statement, adding that the vaccine “will continue to be available at no cost for insured people whether they receive them at their doctors’ offices or local pharmacies.”

Those without insurance – or whose insurance is inadequate, will be able to get jabbed “at no cost” via a Moderna assistance program.

As The Epoch Times notes,

Because the COVID-19 vaccines were added to the child immunization schedule, children whose families cannot pay for the vaccine will be eligible to receive them for free, with taxpayers covering the cost.

That would happen through a program called Vaccines for Children.

Advisers to the government, who recommended the addition to the schedule, said it was because the vaccines can prevent severe illness. The new vaccines, poised to replace the original shots, are not backed by any clinical trial data yet.

Dr. Rochelle Walensky, director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said that the only reason the vaccines were placed on the schedule was so they could be covered by the Vaccines for Children program.

“It was the only way that our uninsured children would be able to have access to the vaccines,” Walensky said during a congressional hearing on Feb. 8. “That was the reason to put it on the schedule.”

*  *  *

The announcement comes amid a collapse in demand for Covid-19 vaccines.

According to analyst estimates, Pfizer, Moderna, Gilead Sciences, AstraZeneca and Merck could suffer a drop in sales of nearly two-thirds, Reuters reports.

“We remain skeptical that COVID revenues will grow in 2024 and beyond,” said JPMorgan analyst Chris Schott in a recent research note, adding that vaccination rates could drop even further than the significant decline already seen in booster shots last year.

Moderna also expects 2023 revenue to drop sharply.

The company’s only product – its messenger RNA COVID vaccine – pulled in around $18.4 billion in 2022. Analysts expect that to drop to around $7 billion in 2023. The company is due to report earnings later this month.

Oppenheimer & Co analyst Hartaj Singh said investors are “frustrated Moderna hasn’t used their firepower more effectively to prepare for revenues and earnings going down in 2023 or 2024.” -Reuters

What changed?

Over the past 18 months, skeptics of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines and those pointing out high rates of adverse reactions have been subject to ostracism, deplatforming, and flawed ‘fact checks‘ to shut down opinions and analysis which conflicted with official narratives.

Now, the data has begun to speak for itself, thanks to people like former Blackrock portfolio manager Ed Dowd, who has devoted the last several years to deep-dive research and analysis of pandemic-related data (in fact, he’s written an excellent book on the topic). Dowd, along with partners Carlos Alegria and Yuri Nunes, launched Phinance Technologies – where, aside from traditional macroeconomic analysis, they have produced comprehensive reports on pandemic-related disabilities and excess deaths using official data.

Their latest analysis reveals that the rate of Serious Adverse Events in the mRNA Covid-19 vaccine clinical trials closely tracks a spike in disabilities reported after the vaccine rollout.

Via Phinance Technologies (emphasis ours), 

In part 3 of our US disabilities analysis we observed that the rise in disability rates post 2/2021 correlates closely with the rollout of the vaccination schedule. When looking at changes in disabilities on a wider time frame (since 2008) we observe that the disability rates rose or fell from month to month but tended to be relatively stable over time. However, as shown in part 1, the change in behaviour since early 2021 is clearly an abnormal occurrence with high level of statistical significance. It happens to be highly correlated to the cumulative Covid-19 vaccine rollout, but we cannot state that the correlation is statistically meaningful as it is based on a cumulative plot with obvious autocorrelation.

In this section we provide further evidence that the most likely cause of the rise in disabilities is the Covid-19 vaccines. For that purpose, we model the expected rise in disabilities due to the vaccination rollout in the general population. We do so by using the rates of Serious Adverse Events (SAEs) obtained by the safety analysis of the mRNA vaccine (Pfizer and Moderna) clinical trials, performed in the Vaccine journal paper we reviewed here, and our analysis in part five.

We can observe that the rate of rise in disabilities is higher than the computed rate of rise in SAEs of special interest, which could be explained in several different ways, or by a combination of factors.

• By the definition of an SAEs of special interest being more extreme than the rate of disabilities reported by the individuals surveyed by the BLS i.e. some disabilities reported by the individuals surveyed by the BLS may be caused by adverse events that are not deemed SAEs of special interest, due to the criteria used to define an SAE being overly restrictive.
• The population of the Civilian Labor Force as a whole may be less healthy (and somehow more vulnerable to vaccine-related disabilities) than the vaccine trial populations, either due to the selection criteria for participation in the trial, or ‘self-selection’ bias.
• Under-reporting of SAEs of special interest in the trial populations.
• Other factors causing excess disabilities in the Civilian Labor Force in a concurrent timeframe to the vaccine rollout.

As Dowd further notes via Twitter;

The rate of estimated SAEs appears to be under-reported relative the recorded rise in disabilities (according to the BLS survey) by about 2.6 times. These results were expected as we had already shown in part 3 of our study the high correlation between the rise in the disability rate since 2/21 with the vaccine rollout. We realise that performing the correlation of cumulative time series is misleading & the R2 should not be taken as an indication of establishing a statistically significant relationship as both time series have autocorrelation.”

Bottom line: There were enough safety signals to show that what we are seeing in the BLS data was known during the clinical trials even given their narrow definition of a SAE. The trials should have been halted. 

During a hearing Thursday, Senator Rand Paul grilled the dean of Johns Hopkins School of Nursing and exposed the hypocrisy of the institution’s COVID vaccine mandate.

Paul asked Dr. Sarah Szanton during the hearing on Health Care Workforce Shortages if she was “pro-choice in regards to patients making individualized medical choices?” to which Szanton responded “Broadly, thank you, yes.”

The Senator then asked “Are you aware that your university doesn’t allow choice with regard to vaccination, that you require all of your students to have three vaccines in order to be students?”

Szanton responded in the affirmative, and Paul noted “So it’s sort of choice, but not so much when regarding vaccination,”

Paul then asked if Szanton is “aware of the increased risk of myocarditis with the COVID vaccine, particularly with successive COVID vaccinations in males between the ages of 16 and 24?”

Szanton then attempted to squirm away from the line of questioning, claiming it wasn’t relevant to the subject of the hearing.

Paul shot back, “Here’s the problem, if you exclude everybody from being a nurse who believes in basic immunology, you’re gonna exclude a lot of smart people, people who believe that you can get immunity from both vaccination as well as infection.”

He continued, “and if you say, ‘Well, we’re just not gonna take the people who believe in that old-fashioned infection thing providing immunity, we’re only gonna take the people who do as they’re told’ — I mean, do you think individuals should be treated the same when they come to the emergency room?”

“In Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, they don’t have university mandates on this,” Paul asserted, adding “Some countries don’t recommend it for children at all. There really is a debate and a discussion, you can have an opposite debate that if you believe in choice, when something has a debate and there’s arguments on both side, you’d give people a choice.”

The Senator added that the vaccine has not been effective in stopping transmission of the virus and so “when you mandate this you can’t make any arguments about protecting other people, it’s only about you at this point.”

Watch:

Paul also clarified “This isn’t an argument against vaccinations, it’s an argument for thinking, and understanding that people of different ages could respond differently.”

This week, Paul also introduced legislation that would see federal funding stopped for health care facilities that choose to deny critical treatment to people who have chosen not to take COVID vaccines.

Numerous hospitals across America are following a ‘no jab, no transplant’ policy.

“No American should be denied access to critical care based on a personal medical decision, yet tragically, many hospitals and other medical facilities continue to discriminate against those unvaccinated for COVID-19,” Paul said in a statement.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube:

———————————————————————————————————————
Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.

We need you to sign up for our free newsletter here.

Support our sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.

Also, we urgently need your financial support here. ———————————————————————————————————————