Comment by SV_BubbleTime | Hacker News Reader

Comment by SV_BubbleTime | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I was curious if you were right. So I found numbers here instead of just claims. It’s been big money, that’s true.

- Pfizer revenue for the quarter ending June 30, 2021 was $18.977B, a 92.39% increase year-over-year.

- Pfizer revenue for the twelve months ending June 30, 2021 was $55.520B, a 59.83% increase year-over-year.

- Pfizer annual revenue for 2020 was $41.908B, a 1.79% increase from 2019.

-Pfizer annual revenue for 2019 was $41.172B, a 0.85% increase from 2018.

- Pfizer annual revenue for 2018 was $40.825B, a 22.31% decline from 2017.

As to Moderna, they were very poorly performing until COVID, their vaccine likely saved their business.

Good for them, I guess. I haven’t ever been a fan of big Pharma (textbook regulatory capture to start), and that hasn’t changed unlike some people who now cheerleader for them after years of skepticism.

As to boosters, and people’s tolerance? Nothing either way surprises me anymore.

Edit: factual Pfizer numbers, no “conspiracy narrative”, still not allowed, got it

Man you can wrap that up with the good ol'conspiracy theory what if it was big pharma that MADE the virus and were sitting on this vaccine?!

What you're saying is the same as saying that some US weapon manufacturer cashed in big whenever the US went to war - how the hell did they pull that off, right?

Yes, and all wars in the last few decades came about entirely naturally and by chance and certainly weren't provoked if not initiated by the US. That's just a good ol'conspiracy theory.

Uh... you didn't get it, I'll break it down to you: according to the parent comment it would be the US Weapon Industry that were causing the wars.

That's the conspiracy theory.

Being surprised that companies have better results when their products are in high demand seems odd that's all.

> it would be the US Weapon Industry that were causing the wars.

Is that out of the realm of possibility? The neocons might be the ones dragging the US into needless conflicts in the name of spreading the religion of "democracy," but I don't see why the weapons industry would be against these misadventures.

> Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

> Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

> This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence--economic, political, even spiritual---is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

This is Eisenhower in 1961.[1]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20080513222105/http://www.usa-pr...

The non-sense is that you're basically saying that the US created the armaments industry as a means to an end - NOT the other way around, which is what it's being labeled as a conspiracy theory.

It wasn't the "American makers of plowshares" that decided to pivot to the weapons business and started to make wars. They were funded to switch their production.

Why would the armaments industry be "creating wars" (what ever that means), if the country - per your Eisenhower quote - requires them to keep developing and producing armament?

Basically they are paid with or without wars.

> Uh... you didn't get it, I'll break it down to you: according to the parent comment it would be the US Weapon Industry that were causing the wars.

That's the conspiracy theory.

There are other industries and interests that also benefited greatly from the wars, but that's essentially the truth of it, yes.

Ah, so now it's several industries that organized themselves in other to create wars just to have the US pay them big checks!

I knew for all these years those boot makers weren't up to no good...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com