"No, but the government and pharmaceutical companies want the jab to be wide spread, so considering they have the same goals, expectations of no collusion is a bit naive."

 I didn't say there should be no expectations of collusion, I just think it is unrealistic given the way EUA was legislated that Pharma specifically chose to influence thar specific portion of legislation to work against them just in case the US Government incidentally provided advertising and mandates simultaneously.  The savings is way too small.

 If we take the idea that widespread use of a medication is desired by both the Government and Pharma, the limitation of advertising would work against that goal.  We want everyone to get this medication but we will legislate that Billions and Billions of dollars can't be used to do it.  That makes sense to you?

 My observed reality is looking at the timeline of actual real FDA legislation since the 1930's to today, the financial structures of 12 Pharmaceutical companies over that time, and the blatant chronological improbability that Pharma somehow created this specific legislation and the absolute boneheaded approach of spending all that time to save less than 1 percent of advertising revenue on the hope that someday this scenario would happen.

 Pharma really spent all that time, energy and money on this one section of EUA authorization to save a few million over 2 or more years, when just one company spends 5 million per-day?  Per day.  The savings they are getting from the Government could be paid with the loose change from one pharmaceutical's cupholder.  It's the equivalent of you and I saving $4.23 for every 10,000 we spend.

 

 You seem to think I have an expectation that there is no collusion.  Even though I specifically stated there is, just not in regards to the EUA.

Quote:


Emergency
 Uneven
   Applying