Connect with us

Business

US lawmakers accuse Pfizer, Eli Lilly of testing new drugs on prisoners in Communist China

Published

6 minute read

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Two Republicans and two Democrats in the House of Representatives have leveled stunning allegations against two pharmaceutical companies, calling on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to investigate potential testing of drugs on prisoners of Communist China.

A bipartisan group of Congress members has leveled stunning allegations against pharmaceutical companies Pfizer and Eli Lilly, calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) to investigate the potential testing of new drugs on prisoners of Communist China.

The letter was sent August 19 to FDA Commissioner Dr. Robert Calf and signed by Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chair Rep. John Moolenaar, a Republican from Florida and ranking member and Illinois Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Health Energy & Commerce Subcommittee ranking member and California Democratic Rep. Anna Eshoo, and Florida Republican Rep. Neal Dunn.

“For over a decade, it appears that U.S. biopharmaceutical companies conducted clinical trials with China’s military organizations, and specifically with medical centers and hospitals affiliated with the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA), to determine the safety and effectiveness of new drug candidates prior to approval,” the letter reads. “ … we are also concerned that U.S. biopharmaceutical companies have conducted clinical trials with hospital infrastructure located in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR), where the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is engaged in genocide of the Uyghur population.”

The lawmakers’ review of publicly available data found that over the last decade major American Pharma companies have conducted “hundreds of clinical trials in China that included at least one entity with PLA in the name as a research trial partner.”

“Even today, one major U.S. biopharmaceutical entity is actively recruiting patients for an advanced Alzheimer drug trial and is partnered with the PLA’s General Hospital and Medical School … and the PLA’s Air Force Medical University. … Previously, another U.S. biopharmaceutical entity used the 307 Hospital of the PLA (307 医院) as the setting for a cancer therapeutic clinical trial.”

Such work not only carries risks of sensitive technology falling into the CCP’s hands, “there are also U.S. biopharmaceutical trials listed on clinicaltrials.gov that were conducted with hospitals located in the XUAR, where credible investigative reports have shown that ethnic minorities in the region are repeatedly forced by the CCP to surrender their body autonomy. As we know, there is simply no ability for firms to conduct due diligence to ensure that clinical trials done in XUAR are voluntary.”

Axios noted that the trials in question concern Pfizer’s kidney cancer drug axitinib (brand name Inlyta), and Eli Lilly’s Alzheimer’s drug donanemab (brand name Kisunla).

The lawmakers asked the FDA to answer several questions related to its knowledge and oversight of such trials and called on the agency to “take on a greater role in protecting U.S. national security interests. With this data, it is clear that the FDA should play a greater role in analyzing U.S. biopharma entities (sic) clinical trial operations in the PRC.”

Pfizer responded that it “is committed to conducting business in an ethical and responsible manner. This includes respecting internationally recognized human rights throughout our operations,” Straight News reported. Eli Lilly claimed that it is “committed to IP protections, and we conduct robust assessments of our partners to ensure they meet Lilly standards for research and data privacy. Further, we oversee their activities when conducting clinical trials to ensure quality and data integrity.”

large body of evidence has found that mass restrictions on personal and economic activity undertaken in 2020 and part of 2021 caused far more harm than good in terms of personal freedom and economics as well as public health, particularly through the controversial COVID vaccines rushed through development by Pfizer, Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and the Trump administration.

Yet, so far Big Pharma has largely escaped accountability thanks to the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act of 2005. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the PREP Act empowers the federal government to “limit legal liability for losses relating to the administration of medical countermeasures such as diagnostics, treatments, and vaccines.” Near the beginning of the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, the Trump administration invoked the Act in declaring the virus a “public health emergency.”

Under this “sweeping” immunity, CRS explained, the federal government, state governments, “manufacturers and distributors of covered countermeasures,” and licensed or otherwise-authorized health professionals distributing those countermeasures are shielded from “all claims of loss” stemming from those countermeasures, with the exception of “death or serious physical injury” brought about through “willful misconduct,” a standard that, among other hurdles, requires the offender to have acted “intentionally to achieve a wrongful purpose.”

A handful of states are currently making efforts to hold Pharma companies accountable despite this hurdle, such as Florida’s ongoing grand jury investigation into the vaccines’ manufacturers, and a Kansas lawsuit accusing Pfizer of misrepresentation for calling the shots “safe and effective.”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Canada holds valuable bargaining chip in trade negotiations with Trump

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Alex Whalen and Jake Fuss

On the eve of a possible trade war with the United States, Canadian policymakers have a valuable bargaining chip they can play in any negotiations—namely, Canada’s “supply management” system.

During his first day in the Oval Office, President Donald Trump said he may impose “25 per cent” tariffs on Canadian and Mexican exports into the United States on Feb. 1. In light of his resounding election win and Republican control of both houses of congress, Trump has a strong hand.

In response, Canadian policymakers—including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Ontario Premier Doug Ford—have threatened retaliation. But any retaliation (tariffs imposed on the U.S., for example) would likely increase the cost of living for Canadians.

Thankfully, there’s another way. To improve our trade position with the U.S.—and simultaneously benefit Canadian consumers—policymakers could dismantle our outdated system of supply management, which restricts supply, controls imports and allows producers of milk, eggs and poultry to maintain higher prices for their products than would otherwise exist in a competitive market. Government dictates who can produce, what can be produced, when and how much. While some aspects of the system are provincial (such as certain marketing boards), the federal government controls many key components of supply management including import restrictions and national quotas.

How would this help Canada minimize the Trump threat?

In the U.S., farmers backed Trump by a three-to-one margin in the 2024 election, and given Trump’s overall views on trade, the new administration will likely target Canadian supply management in the near future. (Ironically, Trump has cried foul about Canadian tariffs, which underpin our supply management system.) Given the transactional nature of Trump’s leadership, Canadian negotiators could put supply management on the negotiating table as a bargaining chip to counter demands that would actually damage the Canadian economy, such as Trump’s tariffs. This would allow Trump to deliver increased access to the Canadian market for the farmers that overwhelmingly supported him in the election.

And crucially, this would also be good for Canadian consumers. According to a 2015 study, our supply management system costs the average Canadian household an estimated extra $300 to $444 annually, and higher prices hurt lower-income Canadians more than any other group. If we scrapped supply management, we’d see falling prices at the grocery store and increased choice due to dairy imports from the U.S.

Unfortunately, Parliament has been moving in the opposite direction. Bill C-282, which recently passed in the House of Commons and is now before the Senate, would entrench supply management by restricting the ability of Canadian trade negotiators to use increased market access as a tool in international trade negotiations. In other words, the bill—if passed—will rob Canadian negotiators of a key bargaining chip in negotiations with Trump. With a potential federal election looming, any party looking to strengthen Canada’s trade position and benefit consumers here at home should reject Bill C-282.

Trade negotiations in the second Trump era will be difficult so our policymakers in Ottawa and the provinces must avoid self-inflicted wounds. By dismantling Canada’s system of supply management, they could win concessions from Team Trump, possibly avert a destructive tit-for-tat tariff exchange, and reduce the cost of living for Canadians.

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Business

StatsCan Confirms Canada’s Middle Class Is Disappearing Under Liberal Mismanagement

Published on

The Opposition with Dan Knight

A new Statistics Canada report reveals widening income inequality and a shrinking middle class, all while Trudeau’s Liberals push policies that benefit the wealthy and punish working Canadians.

A newly released report from Statistics Canada on household economic accounts for the third quarter of 2024 confirms what many Canadians have long suspected—while the wealthiest continue to rake in profits, middle- and lower-income families are left struggling under the weight of economic policies that seem designed to work against them. The report, released today, paints a stark picture of a country where financial inequality is not just persisting, but growing.

The numbers don’t lie. Income inequality has increased, with the top 40% of earners pulling even further ahead of the bottom 40%. The gap in disposable income between these two groups expanded to 46.9 percentage points, up from 46.3 just a year ago. The highest-income households saw their disposable income rise by 6.8%, largely driven by soaring investment gains, while the poorest Canadians saw only a 3.7% increase, barely enough to keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, middle-income earners experienced sluggish wage growth of just 2.7%, well below the national average.

Despite declining interest rates, lower-income households found themselves paying more on mortgages and consumer credit, while the wealthy reaped the benefits of higher investment yields. The data shows that middle-income households, who are already feeling the squeeze from inflation and stagnating wages, saw their share of national income shrink.

The most revealing statistic is in net worth distribution. The top 20% of wealthiest Canadians control nearly two-thirds (64.7%) of the country’s net worth, averaging an eye-watering $3.3 million per household. Meanwhile, the bottom 40% hold just 3.3%, barely scraping by with an average of $83,189 in assets.

However, the real estate market has provided a rare silver lining for some lower-wealth households, as they were able to take advantage of slightly more favorable conditions to buy homes, increasing their net worth at the fastest pace. But even that gain is tempered by the reality that housing costs remain unaffordable for many, and young Canadians under 35 continue to pull back from homeownership altogether.

Let’s be clear—this isn’t happening by accident. This is what happens when you let a government of self-serving narcissists run the country into the ground. Justin Trudeau and his Liberal Party have spent nearly a decade dismantling the Canadian economy, pushing a radical, ideologically driven agenda that benefits their elite donor class while leaving working Canadians behind. And now, as the country crumbles under the weight of their incompetence, Trudeau is running for the exits, leaving the mess to whoever’s foolish enough to take the job.

And what do they do on the way out? Do they work to secure our economy? To make life more affordable? To protect Canadian workers? No. Instead, they decide to pick a fight with the United States. Donald Trump, who actually puts his country first—imagine that—announces a 25% tariff on Canadian imports, a move meant to address drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and what’s the Liberals’ response? Do they try to work out a deal? Do they negotiate in good faith to protect Canadian jobs? No. Instead, Chrystia Freeland comes out swinging, proposing retaliatory tariffs that will hurt Canadian businesses just as much, if not more, than they’ll hurt the U.S.

This isn’t about protecting Canada. This isn’t about securing the border or fighting for our economy. This is about pure, partisan politics. The Liberal base wants conflict with the U.S. Not because it’s good for the country, but because their fragile, self-righteous worldview depends on it. They hate Trump, and they hate that his America-First policies are actually working for American workers. So instead of finding a solution, they escalate. They antagonize. Because their base loves it. Not because Canada benefits, but because Liberals benefit.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

And meanwhile, what’s Jagmeet Singh doing? The man who loves to talk about standing up for the working class? He could pull the plug on this corrupt government today with a non-confidence motion. But he won’t. Because, like every other member of the political elite in this country, he’s more interested in protecting his own position than actually doing his job. He makes noise about fighting for Canadian workers, but when the moment comes to act, he folds—again.

So here we are. The economy is in shambles. The wealth gap is growing. The middle class is getting squeezed to death. And the people in charge are too busy playing partisan games to do anything about it. Trudeau is leaving, but his legacy of economic destruction, division, and incompetence will live on through the same out-of-touch Liberal elites who put us in this mess.

But here’s the thing—Canada is better than this. We are a nation built on hard work, freedom, and opportunity, not on government control, reckless spending, and endless excuses. We are a country that thrives when its people—not bureaucrats in Ottawa—decide their own future.

It’s time for Canadians to take their country back. It’s time to put an end to this cycle of economic ruin and government failure. We don’t need more empty promises, more excuses, or more Liberal arrogance. We need an election. We need leaders who believe in the strength of Canadians, not the power of government.

Enough is enough. If we want a future where hard work is rewarded, where families can afford to buy a home, and where our economy is built to benefit all Canadians—not just the elite—then we must act. This country belongs to you, not the Liberal Party, not the special interests, and certainly not the self-serving political class in Ottawa.

Canada deserves better. And the time to demand it is now.

Subscribe to The Opposition with Dan Knight .

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X