At this level (below the satanic controllers), it's all about the money and the resulting corruption not realizing that they will be the sacrificial scapegoats when the time comes to appease and distract "you and me".
At this level (below the satanic controllers), it's all about the money and the resulting corruption not realizing that they will be the sacrificial scapegoats when the time comes to appease and distract "you and me".
As usual Phil, you cut right to the chase. That's the most compelling explanation I've heard so far, they assumed that being part of the club protected them. But they weren't actually part of the club but had their ticket punched by those actually in the club. They were protected as long as they were useful, not unconditionally protected out of loyalty.
Life is so much easier when just acting honestly and in good faith.
Alternative possibility (though it has aspects of this one too) -- that the people below knew what their bosses wanted to hear, and painted everything in a more positive light than was justified. Filter this through multiple levels of management, and you get "safe and effective"; plus, those in change think that because they are "doing good" at the request of the government, *of course* the government will cover for them in the event of "small mistakes".
Under normal circumstances I'm not convinced this would be plausible since the CEO knows their @$$ is on the line if something goes wrong and will demand more details if something looks "off", but with everyone under pressure due to "the pandemic" (and drooling over the profits they could make from a government contract to supply ONE BILLION DOSES), who's going to stand up and say "stop" to what is supposedly "the cure"?
At this level (below the satanic controllers), it's all about the money and the resulting corruption not realizing that they will be the sacrificial scapegoats when the time comes to appease and distract "you and me".
It's all pre-planned to the very end.
As usual Phil, you cut right to the chase. That's the most compelling explanation I've heard so far, they assumed that being part of the club protected them. But they weren't actually part of the club but had their ticket punched by those actually in the club. They were protected as long as they were useful, not unconditionally protected out of loyalty.
Life is so much easier when just acting honestly and in good faith.
"As long as they were useful". Perfect description. And then useful as scapegoats.
Alternative possibility (though it has aspects of this one too) -- that the people below knew what their bosses wanted to hear, and painted everything in a more positive light than was justified. Filter this through multiple levels of management, and you get "safe and effective"; plus, those in change think that because they are "doing good" at the request of the government, *of course* the government will cover for them in the event of "small mistakes".
Under normal circumstances I'm not convinced this would be plausible since the CEO knows their @$$ is on the line if something goes wrong and will demand more details if something looks "off", but with everyone under pressure due to "the pandemic" (and drooling over the profits they could make from a government contract to supply ONE BILLION DOSES), who's going to stand up and say "stop" to what is supposedly "the cure"?
Google who covers the law suits and why. For childhood vaccines also.