Alarm as Super Malaria Spreads in South East Asia

This was one headline that caught my eye on today's BBC News. The article begins:

The rapid spread of "super malaria" in South East Asia is an alarming global threat, scientists are warning. This dangerous form of the malaria parasite cannot be killed with the main anti-malaria drugs. It emerged in Cambodia but has since spread through parts of Thailand, Laos and has arrived in southern Vietnam. The team at the Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit in Bangkok said there was a real danger of malaria becoming untreatable. Prof Arjen Dondorp, the head of the unit, told the BBC News website: "We think it is a serious threat. "It is alarming that this strain is spreading so quickly through the whole region and we fear it can spread further [and eventually] jump to Africa."

The news article is based on a letter that appeared in The Lancet Infectious Diseases website this month (October 2017). The letter, quite brief, references four sources, the second of which is referred to as "a sinister development" in which a single dominant artemisinin-resistant P falciparum C580Y mutant lineage has arisen in western Cambodia, outcompeted the other resistant malaria parasites, and subsequently acquired resistance to piperaquine (link). It's a long and detailed scientific article and I'm not competent to assess its validity or significance but I did note that funding for the study came from The Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The multiple authors pointed out that the funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The corresponding author had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

In fact most of the founding for this Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit comes from The Welcome Trust that describes itself as:

Wellcome exists to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas to thrive.

We’re a global charitable foundation, both politically and financially independent. We support scientists and researchers, take on big problems, fuel imaginations, and spark debate. 

Disturbingly, the organisation lists vaccine development at the top of its list of types of supported projects. It would not be unreasonable to suspect that, when a news article like this appears, some sort of new antimalarial vaccine might be in preparation. The idea would be to promote the threat of a malaria apocalypse (as opposed to an Ebola or Zika apocalypse) to maximise vaccine sales. There's no such new vaccine promised at the moment, but a vaccine does exist. 

The only approved one at the time of writing is RTS,S. It requires four injections, and has a relatively low efficacy (26–50%). Due to low efficacy, WHO does not recommend the use of RTS,S vaccine in babies between 6 and 12 weeks of age. The vaccine is going to be studied further in Africa in 2018. Research continues into recombinant protein and attenuated whole organism vaccines. It was developed by developed by PATH Malaria Vaccine Initiative (MVI) and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) with support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Here is a link to an earlier post of mine on a Malaria Vaccine. It seems that this latest article might be an attempt to justify an extension of the trial of the vaccine to South East Asia in addition of Africa. Let's watch developments and see how this alarming global threat unfolds.

Gyalchester

The photo above shows Drake performing "Gyalchester" at the Billboard Music Awards 2017 on the 21st of May, the day before the Manchester Arena attack. 

"Gyalchester" is a song by Canadian musician Drake from his playlist, More Life (2017). The term is a portmanteau of the patois-spoken word for girl or "gyal," merged with second half of the word Manchester (Manchester Parish in Jamaica), indicating that beautiful women originate from that area.

As the Billboard website said:

Drake stole the show at the 2017 Billboard Music Awards in more ways than one, taking home 13 honors, surpassing Adele's mark as the artist with the most BBMA wins in one night, delivering a fiery performance in the middle of the famous Bellagio fountain ...

Drake's performance on the night and his performances in general are steeped in Illuminati symbolism. This YouTube video gives a good account of it:

The fact that Drake performed "Gyalchester" on the night before the attack doesn't prove anything of course. It may well be mere coincidence or then again it may signify something quite sinister. The number 22 features prominently in the attack: it occurred around 22:35pm on the 22nd May and there were 22 deaths. The bomber was 22 years old. The number 11 and multiples of 11 (like 22) are recognised Illuminati numbers, whether one believes in the existence of the organisation or not.

This terror event, staged or not, will certainly help Theresa May push her Internet reform agenda forward. Here is part of what she's hoping to implement once her government is returned to power (source):

Theresa May is planning to introduce huge regulations on the way the internet works, allowing the government to decide what is said online. 

Particular focus has been drawn to the end of the manifesto, which makes clear that the Tories want to introduce huge changes to the way the internet works.
"Some people say that it is not for government to regulate when it comes to technology and the internet," it states. "We disagree." 

Senior Tories confirmed to BuzzFeed News that the phrasing indicates that the government intends to introduce huge restrictions on what people can post, share and publish online. 

The plans will allow Britain to become "the global leader in the regulation of the use of personal data and the internet", the manifesto claims. 

It comes just soon after the Investigatory Powers Act came into law. That legislation allowed the government to force internet companies to keep records on their customers' browsing histories, as well as giving ministers the power to break apps like WhatsApp so that messages can be read. 

The manifesto makes reference to those increased powers, saying that the government will work even harder to ensure there is no "safe space for terrorists to be able to communicate online". That is apparently a reference in part to its work to encourage technology companies to build backdoors into their encrypted messaging services – which gives the government the ability to read terrorists' messages, but also weakens the security of everyone else's messages, technology companies have warned. 

The government now appears to be launching a similarly radical change in the way that social networks and internet companies work. While much of the internet is currently controlled by private businesses like Google and Facebook, Theresa May intends to allow government to decide what is and isn't published, the manifesto suggests. 

The new rules would include laws that make it harder than ever to access pornographic and other websites. The government will be able to place restrictions on seeing adult content and any exceptions would have to be justified to ministers, the manifesto suggests 

The manifesto even suggests that the government might stop search engines like Google from directing people to pornographic websites. "We will put a responsibility on industry not to direct users – even unintentionally – to hate speech, pornography, or other sources of harm," the Conservatives write.

Whether she succeeds or not is uncertain but her intention is nothing less than complete control of the Internet. The Internet really only kicked off in 1995 and so 22 years later, it may be about to undergo a radical change. June 8th is the date set for the UK elections.

Manchester Arena Blast

The last time I was in Manchester it was 1996, or maybe 1997, and I remember looking at the damage caused to some of the buildings by IRA bombings. The latest attack at 22:35 BST on May 22nd 2017 occurred at the Manchester Arena and at this stage appears to have killed 19 people. As usual, one can expect the mainstream media to report only what it is told to report. So what's really going on?

The blast occurred at the end of an Ariana Grande concert. This artist is from the United States and has been identified, by those who claim to know about such matters, as yet another artist whom the forces of evil have decided to raise to international stardom. Such artists are sometimes called Illuminati puppets. Their music videos are typically heavy with Illuminati symbols and dark, satanic images. Ariana's recent videos are no exception. Here is a photograph of her with the five-pointed star and one eye visible.

She's even described battling demonic forces. There's definitely something very odd about the music industry in the United States and, according to some, the price of fame is to swear allegiance to the Dajjal defined as:

Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: المسيح الدجّال‎‎ Al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl, "the false messiah","liar" or "the deceiver") also referred to as "the anti-christ" is an evil figure in Islamic eschatology. He is to appear, pretending to be al-Masih (i.e. the Messiah), before Yawm al-Qiyamah (the Day of Resurrection). Wikipedia

The Dajjal is blind in the right eye (according to the Wikipedia article). Notice how Ariana has covered her right eye with the five-pointed star. In late 2013, Ariana turned her back on Catholicism and embraced the Kabbalah as explained in this video:

Once you've sold your soul to the devil so to speak there's no going back however, and if you do express misgivings you'll be given a warning. Perhaps this Manchester blast is Ariana's warning. Mind you, I've not found any evidence to support such a lapse of faith. She seems to be at the top of her game and enjoying full Illuminati support. To quote from this article in Factinate:

She also has cultivated a massive social media presence on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Snapchat, and landed on Time magazine’s list of “The 100 Most Influential People” in 2016.

 

I don't know if Ariana Grande is an Illuminati puppet. I don't even know if the Illuminati exists and if it exercises control over the United States music industry. I don't know if the blast is a warning to her. I'm looking at possibilities. It will be interesting to watch how things play out and what Ariana's reaction is to the blast. The British government is currently blaming a suicide bomber.

Italian Government Makes Childhood Vaccinations Mandatory

An article appeared in the BBC News yesterday with the headline: Italy makes 12 vaccinations compulsory for children. The vaccinations are:

• polio
• diphtheria
• tetanus
• hepatitis B
• haemophilus influenzae B
• meningitis B
• meningitis C
• measles
• mumps
• rubella
• whooping cough
• chickenpox

The photo of a child attempting a smile but effecting a strange sort of grimace accompanies the article:

Compare this photograph to that accompanying articles that are skeptical of vaccinations:

This news set me to wondering what pressures had been brought to bear on the Italian Government to implement such legislation (if children are not vaccinated by the age of six, the school starting age, their parents will be fined). An article from Politico titled Italy fights vaccines fear gives some clue. To quote from the article (21st April 2016):

“The Italian situation is unique. Italy has been called out by the WHO [World Health Organization] because the vaccine coverage of the country is falling,” said Lorenzo Moja, an Italian public health expert with the global health body, adding that in some regions, about one in five children do not complete the recommended vaccination schedule.

The article says that in 2015 the Italian Government launched a €700 million National Vaccination Plan with special attention being paid to any doctors who might have reservations:

“We also reached an agreement with the order of physicians, who will be paying close attention to those doctors that discourage parents from vaccinating their kids.” Monitoring these anti-vaccine doctors is key to encourage parents to vaccinate their children.

Further investigation led to an article about a pair of Italian scientists who had published some disturbing findings about contaminants in vaccines. The article titled Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Prevalence of Contaminants (January 30th 2017) appears in a blog called "The Driven Researcher" on the website CRMSI (Children's Medical Safety Research Institute) and begins:

Every Human Vaccine Tested Was Contaminated by Unsafe Levels of Metals and Debris Linked to Cancer and Autoimmune Disease, New Study Reports 

Researchers examining 44 samples of 30 different vaccines found dangerous contaminants, including red blood cells in one vaccine and metal toxicants in every single sample tested – except in one animal vaccine. 

Using extremely sensitive new technologies not used in vaccine manufacturing, Italian scientists reported they were “baffled” by their discoveries which included single particles and aggregates of organic debris including red cells of human or possibly animal origin and metals including lead, tungsten, gold, and chromium, that have been linked to autoimmune disease and leukemia. 

In the study, published this week in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination, the researchers led by Antonietta Gatti, of the National Council of Research of Italy and the Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics, say their results “show the presence of micro- and nano-sized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccine samples” not declared in the products’ ingredients lists.

There is a link to the study. It leads to a PDF file hosted on a site called MedCrave that promotes the publishing of scientific papers without the peer review process of the well known scientific journals. To be fair, MedCrave does claim that its paper are peer reviewed. However, the site is listed as one of many accused by the scientific community of "predatory publishing" (publishing articles of dubious scientific merit in exchange for money). The site does have its defenders however, and while it does not have the imprimatur of the scientific establishment, it does seem to be offering a genuine service. A number of online journals are hosted and the International Journal of Vaccines & Vaccinations is just one of many. The study appears in Volume 4 Issue 1 2017. 

The study seems professional enough and seems to show that vaccines contain a disturbing number of contaminants. However, a harsh criticism of the study can be found here. The author writes:

I’ve frequently written about what I like to refer to as the “toxins gambit” with respect to vaccines. Basically, in the hard core (and even soft core) antivaccine crowd, vaccines are feared as being loaded with all sorts of “toxins,” such as aluminum, formaldehyde, mercury, and various chemicals that are dangerous enough separately, but, when combined, “poison” young babies, resulting in their becoming autistic, acquiring asthma and autoimmune diseases, or even dying of sudden infant death syndrome. Of course, many of the scary-sounding chemicals to which antivaccinationists point actually are in vaccines, but, as Paracelsus put it, the dose makes the poison, and the amount in vaccines is very much low enough not to pose a health threat. Also, formaldehyde is a product of normal metabolism present in the bloodstream of infants at a level much higher than what any vaccine contains.

It's an interesting argument and I'm not trying to decide here if the author's criticisms are valid or not. What I started out to investigate was the reason why the Italian government decided to make vaccinations mandatory. I've established that the government was already under pressure from WHO and had launched a vaccination drive back in 2015. The Italian researchers' article appeared in January 2017 and, coming as it did from Italians, it would have been noticed. The rebuttal from Orac, the nom de blog of a surgeon named David Gorski, was posted on ScienceBlogs. Maybe the MedCrave article was the catalyst for the legislation but who knows?

There is definitely politics involved. According to this source:

The ruling parties accuse the opposition 5-Star movement for feeding the climate of fear over vaccines. The populist movement criticised the vaccination reform as a gift to pharmaceutical companies.

So this polarisation, between the ruling party and the opposition regarding attitudes to vaccination, may have played a role as well. It's clear that mandatory vaccination is quite a contentious issue in Italy and there is far from unanimous support for it.

Pneumococcal Vaccine

The heading of this article in today's 9NEWS.com.au caught my attention: Death no incentive for lung infection vax. The entire article is reproduced below:

Potential death is not enough to make three quarters of Australian adults vaccinate against pneumococcal pneumonia, a survey reveals. The research shows efforts to raise public awareness of the seriousness of the infection are failing, says Associate Professor Lucy Morgan of the Lung Foundation Australia. 

"Even among high-risk groups, such as those aged over 65, there are no overwhelmingly high motivators for vaccination," she said. Pneumococcal pneumonia is a severe lung infection responsible for a large proportion of pneumonia cases aged 65 and above. An online survey of 1241 adults for the foundation found 75 per cent of adults cannot be motivated to protect against the infection, despite being informed of its seriousness and potentially fatal complications. Of those, 73 per cent are considered high risk of contracting the infection because of their age or a pre-existing condition. 

Infectious diseases paediatrician and immunisation expert Professor Robert Booy says there is a 93 per cent vaccine rate among Australian children. "However, among equally vulnerable senior, we're failing to achieve even 50 per cent pneumococcal vaccine uptake, which could offer up to five more years of high-quality life," he said. "Given grandchildren may pass pneumonia onto their grandparents, and vice-versa, protecting against pneumococcal infection would enrich their lives." 

The Lung Foundation Australia is releasing its research on Tuesday to mark Know Pneumonia Day.

According to this government website, immunisation against pneumococcal disease is achieved using single-disease vaccines. For babies, the first dose of pneumococcal vaccine is recommended at two months of age, with subsequent doses at four and six months of age. While the babies who receive the vaccine have no choice in the matter, adults do and the article laments that 75 per cent of adults cannot be motivated to protect against the infection. The article implies that they're dicing with death and the oldies in particular are just throwing away five more years of high-quality life and maybe passing the damn disease on to their grandchildren. The Lung Foundation Australia is releasing these shocking statistics to mark Know Pneumonia Day. So what is Lung Foundation Australia all about?

Well it turns out that it has offices very near where I grew up. It's official address is Level 2, 11 Finchley Street, Milton QLD 4064. Its website states that:

We ensure lung health is a priority for all in Australia by:

• Promoting the importance of lung health
• Promoting early diagnosis of lung disease
• Supporting those with lung disease, their families and carers
• Promoting equitable access to evidence-based care
• Funding quality research

We rely on donations, membership, bequests, grants, business and industry support.

So who keeps Lung Foundation Australia afloat? Who are the big sponsors? It doesn't take long to find out:

 

Hmmm, well Boehringer Ingelheim is one of the world's leading research-driven pharmaceutical companies with 130 years of experience and Roche is a leader in research-focused healthcare with combined strengths in pharmaceuticals and diagnostics. Get the picture? BIG PHARMA finances this foundation and it is BIG PHARMA that manufactures the pneumococcal vaccine. Perhaps there's a conflict of interest here but that's not an issue likely to be raised on 9NEWS.com.au. It's sounds quite reasonable at first sight: Lung Foundation Australia, whose sole non-profit interest is to keep you breathing, urges all right-thinking adults to line up for their pneumococcal vaccinations. It's in the best interests of themselves, their grandchildren and, just coincidentally, BIG PHARMA.

The drug companies must dream of a day where vaccinations like this are simply mandatory for everybody. 93% of Australian babies are already covered and you can bet that elderly people in nursing homes have little say in the matter as well. It's those damn 75% of adults who are proving a problem. Well, a sensational article with the heading Death no incentive for lung infection vax can't do any harm. It may panic some of them into having the jab. So how effective is this vaccine? Are there any side-effects? This article, admittedly from 2011, shows that we ought to be cautious:

UK Scraps Pneumonia Vaccines Because They 'Don't Work' 

When deciding whether or not to vaccinate, it's important to consider the risks versus the benefits. Case in point, new advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) in the UK has determined that routine vaccination of people over 65 with the pneumococcal vaccine should be discontinued. The Committee stated: 

"JCVI has concluded that the protection the vaccine provides is poor and is not long-lasting in older people. In addition, the programme has had no discernable impact on the incidence of invasive pneumococcal disease in older people. The committee has advised, therefore, that there is little benefit to continuing the programme and that it should be stopped." 

Millions of people over 65 have already received the pneumonia vaccine, which was often offered alongside the flu vaccine in the UK -- and the Department of Health was reportedly still promoting it as recently as January. 

For a vaccine that has provided "poor" protection against illness, the stakes have been high. Mail Online reported official figures from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency that stated the vaccine, sold under brand names Pneumovax and Pneumovax II, has been linked to 30 deaths and more than 3,300 reported side effects. LINK

A supposedly more effective pneumococcal vaccine was introduced by Pfizer in 2014 but there is clearly cause for concern. So for the elderly, as with the young, the list of suggested vaccines keeps rising: pneumococcal, flu, shingles, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis are suggested by the Australian Government. At the moment, such vaccinations are optional but it won't be long before certain penalties will apply to seniors who don't submit to them, in the same way that child support payments are now being withheld from parents who don't fully vaccinate their children.

Malaria Vaccine

"Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease," According to a BBC News report, "the world's first vaccine against malaria will be introduced in three countries - Ghana, Kenya and Malawi - starting in 2018." Three doses are required, spaced three months apart, and then a fourth dose eighteen months later. Without the fourth dose, the benefits decline rapidly. As it is, the vaccine benefits less than four in ten children. The pilot will involve 750,000 children of whom half will get the vaccinations. The funding is coming from the usual suspects:

• Gavi - The Vaccine Alliance (Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation)
• Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria
• Unitaid
• WHO (World Health Organisation)
• GSK (GlaxoSmithKline)

An earlier article in The Guardian dated 30th June 2016 is less positive:

As the vaccine wears off, the study shows that children living in areas where there is high transmission of the disease end up with more infections than those who have never had a jab – known as the malaria rebound effect. Unvaccinated children – if they survive malaria – develop some natural immunity over the years.

One has to be skeptical of yet another vaccine being added to the hefty number that children already receive. How effective will be the collection and collation of the data relating to 750,000 children in these countries? The pilot involves a control group of 375,00 who get no vaccinations and the same number in the vaccinated group whose vaccine regime extends over 27 months.

To quote from The Guardian article again:

Dr David Kaslow, vice-president for product development at Path, a non-profit international organisation that has been a key player with the pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmithKline, said up to six doses could be needed to maintain the protective effect.

Six doses of a vaccine? With this in mind, one would suppose that this vaccine, rolled out across Africa and South East Asia, would be a big money spinner for the pharmaceutical companies involved. If the benefits are dubious, well so what and given the reported rebound effect, drawbacks may outweigh benefits. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has a long history of criminal activity so this company's involvement in anything should be enough to raise suspicions.

Developing countries are an excellent venue for testing out new vaccines. GSK was convicted for killing 14 babies during vaccine trials in Argentina in 2012. It was fined less than US $100,000 for the offences (source). The problem with vaccines is not the vaccines themselves but the way they are brought to market. The pharmaceutical companies oversee the trials, there is little independent testing because of the expense involved. They lobby governments to push the vaccines via the healthcare infrastructure in various countries. If they can persuade governments to mandate the vaccine, all the better. They ensure that mainstream media carries news of the supposed benefits of vaccines.

The more sophisticated the health care services of a country, the more warmly vaccines are embraced. In developing countries, there is well-deserved skepticism about the benefits of vaccinations but not so in countries like Australia. The elderly dutifully line up for their flu shots. From neonate to teenager, the young are subjected to a plethora of shots to protect them allegedly from a dangerous, pathogen-filled world. Any reservations about the number of vaccines received or their scheduling is howled down as being a matter for health care professionals to decide. Of course, any criticisms from within the health care community are rare and any person bold enough to voice concerns risks ostracism from her or his fellow professionals. There seems to be no middle ground. One is either for or against vaccines.

ABC News recently carried this news article: Are you an unvaccinated adult? Here's what you need to know about catching up. The article goes on to suggest the following:

• MMR — measles, mumps, rubella — approximately $35.00 per dose
• Varicella (chicken pox) — approximately $80.00 per dose
• Hepatitis B — approximately $20.00 per dose
• Poliomyelitis (polio) — approximately $39.99 per dose
• Tetanus/whooping cough/diphtheria — approximately $45.00 per dose
• Influenza (flu) — approximately $20.00
• Hepatitis A — approximately $65.00 per dose
• Human Papillomavirus (HPV/Gardasil) — approximately $200.00 per dose
• Haemophilus Influenzae Type B (Hib) — approximately $24.95 per dose
• Meningococcal C — approximately $100.00 per dose

This amounts to well over A$600. The government will actually cover these costs for an individual up until the age of 20, which means that taxpayers are footing the bill. One comment by a doctor in the article is revealing: Because the way each person's body deals with the disease is different and we can't predict what you will do if you get exposed to the disease. This observation could be applied equally well to vaccines. It's clear that in certain individuals the reaction to a vaccination can be unpredictable and sometimes catastrophic. The argument always is that the benefits of vaccines outweigh their drawbacks. For those who suffer catastrophic reactions, this is of little comfort.

Can it be that vaccines are less about public health and more about private profits? What happens when we follow the money trail? The following quote from ENCOGNITIVE.COM is revealing:

The vaccine industry was worth about $23 billion in 2014 and expected to reach $42 billion by 2020. That's big business. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole is BIG Business, thus the moniker Big Pharma. Below are some of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, as of October, 2014. After looking at these numbers, you'll understand why they're called BIG Pharma and how it is that they're able to steer and dictate public health policies. Almost every single public policy pertaining to drugs and vaccines was drafted by the pharmaceutical industry--it is able to do this by showering money on those it seeks to influence.
Big Pharma's sphere of influence extends from journalists to doctors: 

• TV Networks (advertising),
• Scientists (research grants),
• Researchers (research grants, salary),
• Doctors (kickbacks, consulting fees, prescriptions, legal bribery),
• Government Bureaucrats (revolving door, stock options),
• Universities and Colleges (endowments, research grants, tuition sponsorships)
• Public Health Officials (revolving door, stock options),
• Politicians (campaign contributions, revolving door),
• Journalists (paid stipends, through TV network owners)
• Consumers (mass advertising, fear-mongering/scare tactics through media).

Of course, if fears of a pandemic can be heightened to the point of hysteria, then vaccines can be fast-tracked and administered to all who are gullible enough to take them. Here are the big players in the pharmaceutical game (from ENCOGNITIVE.COM):

Big Pharma by the Numbers 

Sanofi
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $138 billion
Headquarter: Paris, France
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), Euronext 

GlaxoSmithKline
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $24 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $106 billion
Headquarter: Brentwood, England
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), London 

Merck
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $42 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $156 billion
Headquarter: Whitehouse Station, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Johnson & Johnson
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $76 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $280 billion
Headquarter: New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Eli Lilly and Co.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $21 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $70 billion
Headquarter: Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

Novartis
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $56 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $237 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: NYSE (ADR), SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Astellas
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): N/A
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): 3.52 trillion Yen
Headquarter: Chuo-ku, Tokyo, Japan
Stock exchange: TKO (Tokyo Stock Exchange) 

Roche Holding Ltd.
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $90 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $246 billion
Headquarter: Basel, Switzerland
Stock exchange: OTCMKTS, SIX (Swiss Exchange) 

Pfizer Inc 
Approximate 2014 revenue (USD): $47 billion
Market capitalization (total market value of stocks, USD): $177 billion
Headquarter: New York, New York, USA
Stock exchange: NYSE 

The first legal duty of a public listed company: maximise profit for shareholders.

Assad Gas Attack

An article on Quartz (link) began as follows:

In the aftermath of reports suggesting Syrian president Bashar al-Assad had once again unleashed a deadly chemical weapon on civilians, at least one Western leader—embattled by human rights criticism at home—immediately responded with class and clarity. Issuing a bullish statement on Twitter, this leader called for a full investigation and declared, “there can be no future for Assad in a stable Syria.” 

That leader, of course, was British prime minister Theresa May. While usually one would expect such a strong statement to come from the US—the traditional leader of the free world—it was the leader of the UK who set the tone on Tuesday.

This nausea-inducing article was written by Max de Haldevang who reports on Quartz's global politics desk. His obsessions include Cities & Urban Development, and Global Corruption. He has reported in Mexico and London for Reuters, in Russia for The Moscow Times and worked for NBC at the Rio and Sochi Olympics. He speaks Russian and Spanish, and has degrees from Cambridge and Columbia. Source.

It's hard to stomach phrases like responded with class and clarity to describe someone like May and the traditional leader of the free world to describe a country like the United States. So who is Max de Haldevang, the author of such idiotic comments? Well, he's clearly not very old so we shouldn't be too hard on him. He's just trying to make his mark in the world of mainstream journalism. He's the guy on the right and looks like a teenager but must be older.

The article from where the photo was taken describes him as having been awarded a Reuters Fellowship from the Overseas Press Club Foundation at the Foundation’s 2015 Annual Scholar Awards Luncheon held at the Yale Club in New York City. The other guy in the photo is the Pulitzer-Prize winning David Rohde, now of Reuters. 

Further investigation shows that Rohde has more than a Pulitzer Prize as a claim to fame:

While in Afghanistan, Rohde was kidnapped by members of the Taliban in November 2008, but managed to escape in June 2009 after seven months in captivity. While he was in captivity, The New York Times collaborated with a number of media outlets, including al-Jazeera and Wikipedia, to remove news of the kidnapping from the public eye.

Rohde has reported on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US government's roundup of Muslims following 9/11. While clearly mainstream, he seems to have a reasonable track record. Aspiring journalists like de Haldevang must establish their reputations in a very competitive arena. He was one of 15 aspiring foreign correspondents selected by a panel of leading journalists from a pool of 175 applicants from 50 different colleges and universities.

His LinkedIn account shows him as having finished a B.A. (Hons) in Modern Languages at Cambridge between 2009 and 2013. He's since completed an M.A. in Russian Studies at Columbia University 2014-2016. This would put him in his mid-twenties I guess. It's a pity talented individuals like him are forced into mainstream journalism where their motivation to delve behind the scenes of world events will be actively discouraged by those who decide whether stories will be published or not.

The real story about the alleged Assad gas attack is why he would have launched it at such an inopportune time. Here is a video in which Ron Paul discusses the event:

As for Theresa May, her barking about the need to remove Assad is no different from Tony Blair's barking about the need to remove Saddam Hussein before he could unleash his non-existent weapons of mass destruction. May has no class whatsoever. However, Reuters is head-quartered in London and maybe de Haldevang is hoping for a posting there. After all, following his Reuters Fellowship he was assigned to Mexico City. Maybe he's still there and his fatuous article for Quartz is a ploy to garner British friends in high places who will put in a good word for him at the Reuters desk in London.