Dear Reader,
Greed.
Nothing more, nothing less.
It’s almost unbelievable, but on Friday, Moderna stepped up to sue Pfizer (and its partner BioNTech) for infringing on its patents for mRNA technology and its method for delivering the drug via lipid nanoparticles.
mRNA technology and the lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism are the keys to the COVID-19 “vaccines” (experimental drugs) manufactured and sold by Moderna and Pfizer. Moderna developed its drug in-house, and Pfizer leveraged the work done by its partner BioNTech.
Moderna, and Pfizer, took no risk at all in developing their respective drugs. In Moderna’s case, the U.S. federal government had already given $10 billion of taxpayer money to them for research and development, clinical trials, and advanced purchase of the drugs.
In Pfizer’s case, its partner BioNTech received $445 million from the German government to support the research and development, and manufacturing capacity, for its drug. And it had, and still has, a multi-billion-dollar agreement for advanced purchase of doses for its COVID-19 “vaccine.” And it wasn’t just the “vaccine” – Pfizer has a $5 billion guarantee from the Biden administration to purchase its COVID therapeutic pill, Paxlovid.
Even more relevant is that the U.S. government indemnified both companies from any severe side effects, including death, caused by the COVID-19 “vaccines.” Said another way, they have immunity from any liability. Thanks to taxpayers and the deals with the U.S. government, neither company had any risk at all… and they were basically guaranteed windfall profits.
These companies and their executives made absolute fortunes in the process. The two founders of Moderna, and one of its investors, became billionaires.
And they clearly want more, which is why they are suing.
Moderna’s revenue rocketed from just $60 million in 2019 to $18.4 billion last year, and roughly $21.9 billion this year. But the game is up…
Most of us have realized that the drugs simply don’t work. They don’t stop infection… They don’t stop the replication of the virus once infected… And they don’t stop the transmission of the virus.
Even more incredible, there’s not a single randomized controlled trial with placebos that has shown the COVID “vaccines” reduce hospitalizations or death.
So why should we take more shots? We can see that sentiment in the numbers. The reality is that Moderna’s revenues are going to collapse by more than 50% next year. And its stock is down more than 70% from its all-time highs.
Which is why Moderna is suing Pfizer. Amidst rapidly declining revenues and a crashing stock price, Moderna is looking to Pfizer as a way to generate more revenue for the company.
Due to Pfizer’s size and scale, it was able to ramp up quickly and sell more of the drugs than Moderna was able to. In 2021, Pfizer sold $36.7 billion worth and Moderna came in at $17.7 billion. And unlike Pfizer, Moderna’s COVID “vaccine” is its only commercially available product.
So Moderna wants more of what Pfizer has – money.
But there won’t be a quick fix. These kinds of patent disputes unfold typically over years. And as we saw with the CRISPR-related patent disputes, there was a series of appeals that dragged out the ruling even further.
But there is something good that will come out of this egregious example of greed…
It is inevitable that more information on the background of the pandemic will become a matter of public record… including how the National Institutes of Health, through its grant to EcoHealth Alliance, funded the gain-of-function research to engineer a coronavirus in the Wuhan laboratory – and whether or not that is the coronavirus that was leaked (or escaped) into public.
We’ll also get far more clarity on how these “vaccines” were developed, what genetic code was used, the ingredients used for the COVID shots, and a timeline of everything that happened from the pre-planning stages (that occurred well before this pandemic began) through to today.
This will contribute to bringing to light what could very well be the largest medical and political coverup in modern history. The sooner it happens, the better. The truth is coming out with every week that passes.
Last week, we had a look at the recent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) certification of NuScale Power’s new small modular reactor (SMR) design. This was the first new reactor design to get approval in a long time.
There’s just been a major development with one of NuScale’s competitors in the same space. TerraPower, which is still private, just raised $750 million in venture capital (VC) to fund its own SMR design.
The race is on.
Regular readers may remember TerraPower. We looked at the company back in December. It’s another pioneer in the industry that is backed by Bill Gates, who has been outspoken about the need for nuclear power.
TerraPower has a unique approach to nuclear power generation. They call it “Natrium.”
What’s unique about the design is it uses liquid sodium, which can absorb a lot more heat than water. This reduces the pressure within the reactor. And that reduces the risk of an explosion.
So TerraPower’s approach is much safer than any nuclear reactor in operation today.
What’s more, these reactors are very capable. Currently, they can produce about 350 megawatts (MW), enough energy to power about 315,000 homes. And there is potential to increase output to 500 MW.
And just as we discussed last week with NuScale, the company can manufacture these reactors at a central location and then ship them out for installation. This makes them far cheaper than traditional nuclear fission reactors.
So this big VC raise signals that TerraPower is making great progress. The company expects its first reactor to be online and producing electricity, in Kemmerer, Wyoming, by 2028. That’s not that far out.
Needless to say, we’ll track both TerraPower and NuScale closely going forward.
We’ve talked about the political headwinds facing nuclear fission power before… but it appears the winds may be shifting.
And the fact that 25% of U.S. energy production comes from coal right now might help to make a stronger argument for nuclear fission.
Nuclear fission does produce radioactive waste that we have to manage, but it’s far cleaner than coal. That’s why I’m so excited to see these new reactor designs, with excellent safety profiles, moving forward.
They may never make it past the political vitriol, which is why I believe nuclear fusion is the better path forward, but I’m still glad to see continued investment in this kind of carbon emission-free energy production.
There was a huge development in the digital asset space this month.
A division of the U.S. Treasury, called the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), sanctioned a piece of software called Tornado Cash. This is a first.
Tornado Cash is what’s called a crypto mixer. The software enables people to attain a certain degree of privacy with their digital assets.
Here’s how it works: When we buy a digital asset like Ethereum (ETH) on a centralized exchange like Coinbase, that asset is tied to our identity and our IP address. So anyone who knows what they are doing can track all of our transactions.
But if we send our ETH to Tornado Cash, it will mix it together with a bunch of other ETH tokens. Then it will send us back the exact same amount that we sent in… except the tokens we get back are not the same ones we put in. This ends the paper trail that ties us back to our original purchase.
We can think of this as a Virtual Private Network (VPN) for digital assets.
Whenever we connect to a Wi-Fi network, our network provider can track everything we do online… unless we use a VPN service. The VPN disguises our online activity with that of many other people. And it also is a great security measure when connecting with any kind of public Wi-Fi network.
So Tornado Cash provides a valuable service for people who own digital assets. The problem is, a few bad actors used it for illegal purposes. That’s what prompted the sanction.
And OFAC took its sanction one step further. It added every Ethereum address tied to Tornado Cash to its designated nationals and blocked persons list. This is how they blacklist companies and individuals who are known to do illegal things.
But here’s the thing – most of the people using Tornado Cash weren’t doing anything wrong. Yet they were swept onto this list along with the few bad actors.
And OFAC went so far as to arrest one of the software developers who had worked on Tornado Cash. This person hadn’t done anything illegal. He simply wrote some code for the mixer.
That’s what makes this such a big development. And it raises some important questions…
Are we going to arrest everyone who produces cybersecurity software just because people could use it for illicit purposes?
Are we going to arrest everyone who developed the SWIFT system, for international payments and financial transactions, just because a small number of people make international money transfers to fund illegal activities?
The point is, just about any technology can be used for good or for bad. It’s absurd to arrest a software developer of the technology, or to sanction the technology itself, just because a few people or criminal organizations may have used the tech for illegal purposes.
So this sets a frightening precedent. And, of course, there are serious implications for the blockchain industry as well.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just announced that it is revoking a big chunk of wireless spectrum that had been earmarked for the auto industry’s vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-everything (V2X) vision.
V2V and V2X were hot topics when I was an executive at NXP Semiconductors.
The idea was that, by using this technology, every vehicle could talk with every other vehicle on the road. That’s V2V. And with V2X, vehicles could talk with all kinds of sensors and transmitters on highways and roadways as well.
This concept was envisioned to greatly enhance safety, reduce traffic, and improve overall fuel efficiency. This has been a topic of discussion and technological development now for more than 20 years.
At NXP, we had the tech that would have made V2V and V2X a reality. And we were positioned to make it a big part of our business.
The problem is, this automotive industry wasn’t ready or willing to adopt the technology en masse. We ran into the classic chicken and egg problem.
That’s because the auto industry didn’t want to buy the tech until municipalities installed all the sensors and transmitters into their road systems. But the municipalities didn’t want to incur that expense before there were cars that could take advantage of the tech.
And the real value of the technology would never be realized until all vehicles on the road had installed this technology. It’s a problem that would have taken decades… to basically cycle out old cars and replace them with new cars equipped with the tech.
So it just never happened. And with the FCC revoking the spectrum, it never will, at least not in its current form.
The good news is that the auto industry has begun to adopt technology that will enable the V2V vision… just in a different way.
Self-driving cars come laden with a variety of sensors and artificial intelligence (AI) that enable each car to think for itself. Each car will likely have cameras, infrared sensors, radar, and LIDAR that will give the AI enough information to clearly map out its surroundings at all times.
The cars may not communicate with each other directly, but they can account for each other to improve safety and traffic all the same.
So it’s interesting to see this vision that was two decades in the works come to an end. Technology has advanced so much since V2V was originally conceived that it just doesn’t make much sense any longer, and the spectrum can now be used for another application.
Regards,
Jeff Brown
Editor, The Bleeding Edge
The Bleeding Edge is the only free newsletter that delivers daily insights and information from the high-tech world as well as topics and trends relevant to investments.
The Bleeding Edge is the only free newsletter that delivers daily insights and information from the high-tech world as well as topics and trends relevant to investments.
