Some form of intravenous seems more likely. They can mix in a Vax at the same time!!

Well, at least the “carrots” tasted better for the few… who held out or just went back and collected on shot number two, three or five.

You know, the one’s that got one hundred Biden bucks, to get a “free” shot, paid for by the you know who, the working people that pay that thing… taxes! (aka, Democratic slush funds for special projects and personal enrichment.)

Diversity. Sometimes it's an old Scots-Irish tradition.

Forgetting for the moment the country being reminded of what can happen when just one airline (or its pilots) has serious indigestion, this article caught my eye because (sort of) hometown connection. Living near the confluence of 2 interstates and a fair size Old Dominion terminal about 1 mile away - that continues to have a boatload worth of its trailers sitting there and I go by it almost every day.

Some more interesting tidbits in the full article here.

:munchin

Doesn’t quite fare well for the “globalists vision” of the world does it?

The trucking industry hasn’t adjusted to the new labor market realities.
There was plenty of labor available when the baby boomers were the majority of the workforce, but now the tables have turned.

I left the UPS feeder department a little over a year ago to get back into the little trucks.
The two guys who were under me in our seniority list are looking to transfer back to the little trucks.

Feeder work used to be the premiere job at UPS, and you usually wouldn’t even get the opportunity until you’d been with the company at least 20 years.
Now, new drivers are getting the opportunity to go into feeders in their first couple years.

The work rules in our local recently changed to where you have to choose a permanent career path (big or little trucks) after your initial 3 year obligation in the big trucks.
It has had the net result of pushing people out of the department.

When it comes to moving all those shipping containers, the problem is the time drivers have to wait at the port to receive their loads.
The old compensation systems paid drivers by the mile, so they don’t get paid while waiting at the port.

Drivers aren’t interested in giving away their time without compensation.
Trucking companies haven’t adjusted to the new bargaining power available to drivers.

I'm sure Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg is on it.

Pretty sure Pete is on maternity leave right now, Joe told him to take off all the time he needed.

It’s too busy being a new birther, St. Fauci will step in and declare that truck drivers including LGBTQIIABCXWZ and cis-gendered don’t share in the spread of Covid and therefore can work without “masks”!

That should help Southwest pilots looking for new employment after quitting their jobs over vaccination requirements.

https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/10/...es-more-covid/

https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/09/...junction-order

[QUOTE]32. I am also aware of the Secretary of Defense Austin’s order in relation to Covid Vaccine mandates made this week. In an information paper, it was stated that, “Unit personnel should use only as much force as necessary to assist medical personnel with immunizations.” The use of force to administer a medical treatment or therapy against the will of a mentally competent individual constitutes medical battery and universally violates medical ethics. Currently, I am not aware of the Comirnaty available within the DOD. Emergency Use Authorized vaccines, despite the attempt to characterize some of them as approved despite such approved versions not being available and regardless of a military member’s prior immunity to Covid 19; even where it may be demonstrated with a recent antibody test.[/QUOTE

[QUOTE]39. The subject matter of this Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and its devastating effects on members of the military compel me to conclude and conduct accordingly as follows:
There are 11 for you .......
[QUOTE]

Read her affidavit not long after it hit the street; I hope she don't find herself 'redacted'.

Bend over again for your drugs America !

You’re Being Gouged On Medicine You Already Paid For

Corporate Dems are trying to prevent the government from securing lower prices for drugs that the government already funded.

Last week, we learned that Merck is planning to charge Americans 40 times its cost for a COVID drug whose development was subsidized by the American government. The situation spotlights two sets of facts that have also gone largely unmentioned in the legislative debate over whether to let Medicare negotiate for lower drug prices.

Fact one: Americans are facing not merely expensive drugs, but prices that are examples of outright profiteering.

Fact two: In many cases, the medicines we are being gouged on are those that we the public already paid for.

These facts show us that pharma-bankrolled Democrats trying to kill drug pricing measures aren’t just bought and paid for in this particular skirmish — they are foot soldiers in the pharmaceutical industry’s larger multi-decade campaign to seal off and rig America’s alleged “free market.”

“Does Not Present Sufficient Cause”

First, there’s the price point of drugs. It’s not merely that Americans are paying the world’s highest prices for pharmaceuticals, it’s that in many cases, we are paying prices that aren’t even close to what consumers in other countries pay.
A new Public Citizen analysis shows that the top 20-selling medicines generated almost twice as much pharmaceutical industry revenue in the United States as in every other country combined. Sure, as compared to others, Americans may buy a lot of prescription drugs, but this study reflects something much bigger at play: pharma-sculpted public policies that allow drug price levels to go beyond profits and into profiteering.

That term “profiteering” is important here because drugmakers aren’t losing lots of money in other countries where they sell medicines at lower prices.
Let’s remember: Pharmaceutical companies aren’t altruistic charities that offer their products abroad at a loss. On the contrary, they are still making healthy profits at lower world-market prices — and as The Intercept’s Lee Fang notes, they are making those healthy profits while boasting of innovation and job growth in countries that have allowed their governments to use bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

The same arrangement could happen in the United States. We could significantly reduce medicine prices, which would save Medicare and individual consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, and in the process we would do little to significantly reduce pharmaceutical innovation. Indeed, a recent Congressional Budget Office study projected that even if profits on top drugs decreased by a whopping 25 percent, it would only result in a 0.5 percent average annual reduction in the number of new drugs entering the market over the next decade.
We Already Paid For The Medicine.

The reason that reduction in new drugs would be so small gets to the other inconvenient fact being left out of the conversation in Congress right now: For all the pharmaceutical industry’s self-congratulatory rhetoric about its own innovations, the federal government uses your tax dollars to fund a lot of that innovation, research, and development.

A study from the National Academy of Sciences tells that story: The federal government spent $100 billion to subsidize the research on every single one of the 200-plus drugs approved for sale in the United States between 2010 and 2016.
Because we the public invested early in these medicines, we reduced the R&D costs for pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, on the back end, the public should have received some sort of return in the form of affordable prices. After all, we took the initial risk, and we lowered the overhead costs that the drug companies might need to recoup through higher prices. In business terms, the public is the early venture investor in these products, and we deserve a share of the returns when the product proves valuable.

However, in the mid-1990s, that business axiom was tossed out when drug lobbyists convinced the Clinton administration to repeal rules that allowed federal officials to require government-subsidized drugs to be offered to Americans at a “reasonable price.”
A few years later, Congress — with then-Senator Joe Biden’s help — voted down legislation to reinstate these rules, and later the Obama administration rejected House Democrats’ request that federal officials at least provide guidelines to government agencies about how they can exercise their remaining powers to combat drug price gouging.

The result: We now routinely face immoral situations like last week’s news that pharmaceutical giant Merck is planning to charge Americans $712 for a COVID drug that cost only $17.74 to produce and whose development was subsidized by the American government.

That’s just the latest example of the absurd paradigm: We take the risk of investing early in the product, but instead of that investment reaping us something valuable like affordable prices, we are rewarded with price gouging by the drugmakers that bankroll the lawmakers who’ve rigged the rules — and aim to keep them rigged.

An Economy Walled Off For Maximum Manipulation
All of this underscores how corrupt and insane the current conversation in Congress really is — and in truth, it’s way more corrupt than it even seems on the surface.

We aren’t merely watching pharma-bankrolled lawmakers try to stop Medicare from negotiating lower prices for drugs — they are trying to stop the government from negotiating lower prices for medicines that the government already paid for, and that we are being charged the world’s highest prices for.

This opposition is just the latest crusade to keep the American market walled off for maximum manipulation. Laws written by drug lobbyists prohibit wholesalers from importing lower-priced medicines from other countries, give drug companies 20-year patents on government-subsidized medicine, prevent the government from requiring reasonable prices for drugs the government pays for, and block Medicare from using its bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices.

That’s not a “free market.” It is a top-down command economy perfectly calibrated for price gouging, and the pharmaceutical industry and its puppet politicians want to keep it that way.

https://www.dailyposter.com/youre-be...eady-paid-for/

This guy that wrote this article was bernie sanders speech writer imagine that !
guess congress will have more internal fighting because of this as well.

It's outrageous and a freakin crime, but they get away with it. I'm lucky that I don't need to take meds, but I feel sorry for those that are siphoned out of their savings because Pharm and Government are Fat Cats. Money, Money, Money...Power, Power, Power...

It's like the VIP lounge at the airport.

...and none of us are members

Well, being intimately involved in drug discovery/development for the last 25 years I have few thoughts on this subject:

1. It is easy to blame pharmaceutical companies, although not blameless, they are not totally responsible either.
2. Government funding is usually at the very early stage (discovery and proof-of concept) and amounts to <1% of the amount required to bring a new drug to market. Most of the government funding goes to University salaries and overhead. Universities retain the patent rights and recover their investment when the technology is sold (usually to a venture capital company).
3. The VC company will bundle the new technology and push it down to one of its portfolio companies to further develop the technology through the pre-IND and on to the IND/clinical phase of development. The cost to this stage is ~$100 million.
4. The pharmaceutical company's sweet spot for acquisition of a new drug candidate is the Phase II clinical trial stage. There is easily $300-$500 million to bring a drug candidate through this stage of development and ready for acquisition by a pharmaceutical company.
5. The acquisition cost will be $1-$2 Billion at least.
6. Now the real costs begin, including Phase 3 clinical studies, formulary costs, pharmacy benefit managers, insurance providers, and various other 'middle-men'. This phase adds a 10x multiple to a new drug's cost before it ever reaches market!

The cost and complexity of taking a new drug to market requires the infrastructure of one of the established pharma companies. They're not the bad guys. It's the cost associated with the process. Frankly, I don't see a point to reform without tisks such as reduction in drug safety/efficacy