Making my not-terribly-surprised faceâŚ
I am quite certain that UK Gov let a similar contract, in the very early stages of vaxx roll-out. I donât think the successful tender was won by an arms/aerospace company but what would I know?
Check out footnote 1 to the SubStack post even if you only skim the article: the call-out was rewritten and re-posted within a matter of days with higher figures shown for likely throughput (i.e. number of adverse reports to process). Quite possibly General Dynamics made a 'phone call arguing for a lower per-report charge but based on a higher minimum figure. Thus a guaranteed minimum income.
In other words, the winning tender probably said theyâd ask for payment at $x for the first 25,000 per week, and for every additional report a further payment of $y (probably nominally lower). That way they can assign a team of employees and add extras if needed, with a guarantee of recouping the costs (and a generous margin).
Well recalled @KarenEliot. I donât know who won it but there was this urgent ad:
Value seems to have been ÂŁ1.5m initially.
This was for âan AI software tool to process the expected high volume of Covid-19 vaccine Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRs) and ensure that no details from the ADRsâ reaction text are missed.â
Personnel must have been increased too.
Placed in October 2020, this was just a little later after the CDC released the bad news that there was a coming tsunami of adverse reactions.
"Explanation:
For reasons of extreme urgency under Regulation 32(2)(c) related to the release of a Covid-19 vaccine MHRA have accelerated the sourcing and implementation of a vaccine specific AI tool.
Strictly necessary â it is not possible to retrofit the MHRAâs legacy systems to handle the volume of ADRs that will be generated by a Covid-19 vaccine. Therefore, if the MHRA does not implement the AI tool, it will be unable to process these ADRs effectively. This will hinder its ability to rapidly identify any potential safety issues with the Covid-19 vaccine and represents a direct threat to patient life and public health.
Reasons of extreme urgency â the MHRA recognises that its planned procurement process for the SafetyConnect programme, including the AI tool, would not have concluded by vaccine launch. Leading to a inability to effectively monitor adverse reactions to a Covid-19 vaccine.
Events unforeseeable â the Covid-19 crisis is novel and developments in the search of a Covid-19 vaccine have not followed any predictable pattern so far."
Since neither the MHRA nor the CDC actually did anything with the adverse reactions - which exceeded expectations - the point of all this surveillance seems to have been to contain or control the situation; and that without it, people would see it spilling over.
Rhisiartâs article notes:
"I have it on good authority that already in late summer 2020, key observers were speculating that EUA would be granted based on almost no evidence whatsoever, as the EUAâs âmay be effectiveâ standard essentially demands no evidence. Still, the FDA was touting a 50% efficacy target â how could they be so confident that any of the vaccines would reach that target? And how could the CDC be so confident about the safety of these untested products?
There is no clause in the contract giving the CDC an option to cancel or suspend the contract in the event that vaccines would not be authorized. Also, the contract stipulates that the contractor would have everything up and running within 60 days of the contract, which means by the end of October. But what if the vaccines were never approved? Or what if they were approved much later, say in February, April or June? Was the CDC just going to hand over [redacted] millions of dollars to the contractor for nothing? Or did the CDC know something about the impending approval of COVID-19 vaccines? It certainly appears that by August, 2020, the impending emergency use authorization of at least one COVID-19 vaccine was a foregone conclusion.
Well we canât argue with the last point (bolded bit) - all the contracts were signed pre-approval. There might not have been a tomorrow, but there was certainly going to be approval.
The timelines donât appear to be lying, do they ⌠unless the first traces of cronyvirus can be retrofitted convincingly, with a cover story that we were being told noble lies to prevent panic. At this rate they (whoever âtheyâ are) need to rewind everything six months or more⌠unless and until more miraculously shrewd guesses come to light.
Itâs great that people - present company not excepted - are still gnawing on these bones because the more time goes by the clearer the whole psyop becomes. The focus is still on China but I think substantial parts of the contaminant research took place in Ukraine. Freedom and democracy arenât really what the U$A are defending (concealing) letâs face it. Neocons gotta neocon.
If only Putin had added uncovering the truth on Gain of Function virus research in Ukraine as a war mover 