Pharmaceutical

The Pharmaceutical conspiracy concerns the Big Five (P5), who use viruses in genetic and pharmaceutical development programs for biological warfare. Research began in 1949. The history of drug medicine scandals can be traced back to the 1840s.

Conspiracy

In 1949, US Special Operations Division (SOD), of the most highly classified work, began new defense programs in biological warfare. Up until 1968, hundreds of aerosolized stimulant field tests were conducted and drugs were developed for use in "brainwashing" and interrogation.

A suite of covert research laboratories and pilot plant centers were established at Camp Detrick, that were overseen by SOD. The study of how cells replicate themselves aided in the development of new drugs and markets. Thus viruses were introduced in Research and Development (R&D) military and intelligence programs. By 1952, healthcare industries were looked at as the best source for introducing government programs.

Pharmaceutical therapies are used in biotechnology to develop or make new products that aid in genetic engineering. Viruses play a big part in creating techniques for gene manipulation. In 1972, combining DNA from the monkey virus SV40 with the lambda virus, made the first known recombinant DNA molecule. The new DNA can be inserted randomly, or targeted to a specific part of the genome, to manipulate an organism's genes.

Pharmaceutical companies make more money from continually selling medicines than from a permanent cure by genetic modification. Therefore pharmaceutical companies have economical incentives to repress genetic engineering of humans and allege such genomics to be "unethical". This may be simple rule mechanics in the companies, in which the companies act as viruses and the rules of the companies as the genes of the viruses while the individual members of the company leadership do not understand what is going on (and may be too stupid to understand. This would explain why the companies prioritize cures for specific diseases and not a general cure for ageing and even the CEOs keep dying from old age like everyone else.

Drug laws

People who invent their own medicines to cure their own diseases are seen as competitors by Big Pharma, who wants to eliminate such people. One strategy to do so is by creating laws that classify people who personally test their experimental cures on animals before testing them on themselves as criminals and to demonize such people, to force biohackers to test the cures directly on themselves with a much greater risk of dying. This means that Big Pharma has an interest in laws that criminalize the casing of so-called "unnecessary animal suffering", which gives courts interpretation room to assume that something was "unneccessary" if it did not conform to an absurdly complicated set of rules or was conducted outside a certain formal institution. In many jurisdictions the crime of animal testing misconduct applies only to experiments performed in registered laboratories that did not have all permits ready, while the exact same experiments performed by citizen scientists would be labelled as the crime of cruelty to animals. It is hardly a coincidence that the first laws against "cruelty" to animals in one's own possession (as opposed to earlier laws against killing or physically harming animals owned by others) were created in the same decade as medicine companies got their first patents on drugs, namely the 1840s.

In many countries, laws against research on animals go beyond general animal protection laws. Permit requirements for scientific research on animals present in countries with no crime category for cruelty to animals such as Russia, China and the legally binding over-state laws of the European Union (as opposed to national laws of European Union countries that generally contain animal protection laws beyond that to different extents in different countries). Even in Western national laws, there is often a bias to overdoing regulations specifically on scientific uses of animals. In Sweden even completely non-invasive research such as observing wild birds with binoculars at a distance requires a permit if it is done for scientific knowledge, but is legal to do without a permit if it is just a hobby. Maybe Pharma fears that someone may learn something from seeing birds using natural remedies? Swedish laws also require permits for putting down animals if and only if samples from the carcass are going to be used for scientific studies, even if the slaughtering takes place with methods that would require no permit if it was for any other purpose. In the United Kingdom, research on octopuses require a permit even though the crime of cruelty to animals in United Kingdom law applies only to vertebrates. And while Spain is infamous for its nationally legal bullfighting, it is also one of the very few countries that have a total ban on testing medicines on Great Apes.

Faux statistics

Corporatitis theory predict that corporations evolve to demonize physical individuals to divert scandals from the corporations as institutions. This happens unintentionally, the extra strength of laws specifically on scientific uses of animals may at first have forced people who had done such research without a permit to hide the scientific purposes and make up other just-so stories to get less severely punished. Some of these forced fake stories may have created the myth of "psychopaths torturing animals for pleasure", psychiatry's official version makes no sense as someone who was incapable of caring about what others feel would not be able to derive any pleasure from suffering in others either. Nor does the combination of claims "psychopaths can turn empathy on and off while normal people feel spontaneous empathy" and "being more upset by intentionally caused suffering than by other suffering is a higher level of empathy than intention-neutral response to suffering" make any sense as being less upset by accidental than intentional injury means turning a response on and off! And even if rationalization existed which it does not and someone wanted to torture another being for its own sake, such a torturer (if present) would not derive more pleasure but lose it by believing that the tortured being could not feel pain. Therefore the entire claim that "believing that animals cannot feel pain is a rationalization for torturing them for pleasure" is complete nonsense.

But with the "psycho myth" in place, corporatitic institutions could start being selected on for random changes in their corporate decision-making rules by integrating arrangements that force employees and especially "managers" to perform more acts against animals among their already-present acts against humans that they already arranged to scandalize the physical persons instead of the legal persons. This involved making the connection to the corporation as non-obvious as possible, such as placing parts of the acts in the homes of the employees and not only in the workplaces. The transition to include children as alleged perpetrators was a low obstacle for corporatitis to jump over in the case of traditions of sons inheriting his father's occupation, which also explains why the faux statistics targeted boys but hardly any girls. The multiple steps in this corporatitic process can explain why although laws criminalizing cruelty to animals and making it possible to track in criminal records had been present in parts of northern Europe since the 1840s and federally in the United States since the 1860s, it was not until the 1970s that the FBI started to claim a link between cruelty to animals and violence to other humans. Even though for most of the 1800s criminal investigators in Western Eurpoe and North America had been extensively searching high and low for correlations between crimes and would have found a link before year 1900 if there was one.

By not only creating criminal sentences for testing biohacking on animals but also demonize people who have done such experiments afterwards with psychological assumptions and stirring up animal rights groups, Big Pharma increases persecution of its competition and cements its profit from effectively monopolized medicines. The fact that animal rights groups who claim to be "anarchists" have adopted the politically created definition of "wanton cruelty to animals" that is the court practice of using bureaucratic permits for animal testing as the line of demarcation between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" animal suffering shows that their supposed "anarchism" is only a facade and that they are all in servants of Big Pharma's state-supported profit. It is easy for the police to create an appearance of biohackers who have been convicted for testing cures on animals without permits being supposedly more statistically violent to other humans by spending more resources investigating assault charges against such people, just as the police gives an appearance of black people being more violent by spending more money on investigations of alleged crimes by black people than alleged crimes by white people, and supposedly "anarchist" groups then stupidly believe in such faux statistics. This increases Big Pharma's profits even more.

See also

• New virus