RFK Jr. triggers Democratic hysterics after pointing out Big Pharma contributions to Rep. Pallone



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sparred this week with a Democratic member of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health who evidently could dish it out but couldn't take it.

Kennedy was ultimately asked to take back a conclusion he reached on the basis of facts about New Jersey Democrat Rep. Frank Pallone's receipt of millions of dollars in campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical industry.

Pallone used his time Tuesday during the hearing concerning the Department of Health and Human Services' 2026 budget to attack Kennedy, suggesting he is a purveyor of a pseudo-scientific agenda that threatens the lives of the American people.

"Mr. Secretary, the science is not on your side. I just really think that people are going to die as a result of your actions and congressional Republicans' actions," said Pallone.

One of Pallone's biggest themes was that Kennedy's work lacked transparency. However, when the health secretary attempted to provide answers, Pallone shut down the dialogue.

"You have made a number of major decisions about vaccines. And … there's been no public comment process or public accountability on that either. What are you afraid of?" asked Pallone. "I mean, with regard to vaccines, are you just afraid of receiving public comments on proposals where you just think these are fringe views that are contrary to the views of most scientists and that the public comments will reflect this?"

Kennedy responded, "We have a public process for regulating vaccines. It's called the ACIP committee, and it's a public meeting."

At the mention of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, Pallone noted that Kennedy had fired the Biden appointees on the panel.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Kennedy canned all 17 Biden administration appointees on the ACIP earlier this month, stressing in a corresponding op-ed that "the committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine."

Data provided on OpenPaymentData.CMS.gov, a site managed by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, indicates Kennedy's concerns were not misplaced, revealing just how cozy some of the former members were with the organizations whose products they were tasked with scrutinizing.

For example, former ACIP member Edwin Jose Asturias apparently collected around $54,000 from pharmaceutical companies, including $20,705 in what appear to be consulting fees.

Among the companies that paid Asturias what appear to have been consulting fees were Pfizer and Merck Sharpe & Dohme LLC, a bio-pharmaceutical subsidiary of the company whose pneumococcal vaccine Capvaxive the committee voted to recommend in October.

'You were the leading member of Congress on that issue.'

Blaze News previously reported that Asturias also appears to have received millions of dollars in research support from Big Pharma, including over $3.1 million from Pfizer and over $730,000 from the British pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline LLC.

"I fired people who had conflicts with the pharmaceutical industry," Kennedy told Pallone.

Despite his supposed desire for answers, Pallone interrupted Kennedy in order to resume attacking him.

When subsequently questioned by Republican Rep. Neal Dunn (Fla.) about how he intended to restore public trust in the health establishment, Kennedy volunteered a quick answer, then tore into Pallone.

RELATED: Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown

Photo by Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Protect Our Care

"Congressman Pallone, 15 years ago, you and I met. You were, at that time, a champion for people who had suffered injuries from vaccines. You were very adamant about it. You were the leading member of Congress on that issue," said Kennedy. "Since then, you've accepted $2 million from pharmaceutical companies in contributions — more than any other member of this committee."

According to OpenSecrets, Pallone has received over $2.2 million from the pharmaceuticals/health products industry and over $5 million from health professionals since 1989.

Just last year, Pallone received over $15,000 in campaign contributions from PACs and individuals linked to Johnson & Johnson and $21,200 from individuals at Amneal Pharmaceuticals.

"Your enthusiasm for supporting the old ACIP committee, which was completely rife and pervasive with pharmaceutical conflicts, seems to be an outcome of those contributions," added Kennedy.

Colorado Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette rushed to Pallone's defense, claiming that Kennedy was "impugning Mr. Pallone" and had implied that "Mr. Pallone would not fight for vaccine victims because he took money from the pharmaceutical industry."

Pallone similarly suggested that Kennedy's words should be "taken down."

After Subcommittee Chair Buddy Carter (R-Ga.) suggested DeGette's point of order was valid, Kennedy said with a smirk that his remarks "are retracted."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Kennedy has Big Pharma ads in his sights — and he's not the only one mulling a crackdown



Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. noted in an op-ed last year that one of the ways President Donald Trump can make America healthy again is by reviewing direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical ad guidelines.

"The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to the public," wrote Kennedy. "News channels are filled with drug commercials, and reasonable viewers may question whether their dependence on these ads influences their coverage of health issues."

The administration is now poised to tackle this issue with policies that might make it costlier and/or more difficult for pharmaceutical giants to push their products directly to patients.

Health and Human Services press secretary Emily Hilliard told Blaze News that "Secretary Kennedy has consistently emphasized direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising must prioritize accuracy, patient safety, and the public interest — not profit margins."

"Consistent with Secretary Kennedy's public health commitments, we are exploring ways to restore more rigorous oversight and improve the quality of information presented to American consumers, who deserve nothing less than radical transparency," added Hilliard.

RELATED: How Big Pharma left its mark on woke CDC vax advisory panel — and what RFK Jr. did about it

Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

Bloomberg reported that the administration is considering two policies in particular.

The first would require drugmakers to to be more forthright in their ads about the side effects of their products.

Given that pharma products often have myriad side effects, this would likely increase the run time of TV ads, thereby making them far more costly. Since a total ban on pharma direct-to-customer ads would expose the administration to litigation, this potential disincentive could have a similar effect without the consequence.

Individuals said to be familiar with the plans told Bloomberg that the second policy would entail denying pharmaceutical companies the ability to write off DTC advertising as a business expense for tax purposes.

Recent analysis from the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing indicated that the average annual global spending on advertising and promotions in 2023 among the drugmakers AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Gilead Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, and Pfizer was $1.4 billion, with Pfizer spending the most.

The advertising data firm MediaRadar reportedly found that companies spent $10.8 billion last year on direct-to-consumer pharma advertising.

Drugmakers spent a combined $729.4 million to run TV commercials for the top 10 brands in just the first three months of 2025, reported Fierce Pharma.

'The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television.'

Bloomberg suggested that these potential policies could impact a key source of revenue for advertising, media, and pharmaceutical companies.

AbbVie chief commercial officer Jeff Stewart reportedly told analysts in May that if there were a crackdown on pharma ads, the company "would have to pivot," potentially focusing its advertising online rather than on mass media.

RELATED: MAHA scores major victory as Kraft Heinz vows to stop using artificial food dyes

Photo by JOSEPH PREZIOSO/AFP via Getty Images

Alex Siciliano, a spokesperson for the National Association of Broadcasters, told Bloomberg, "Restricting pharmaceutical ads would have serious consequences for stations, particularly those in smaller markets, and could raise First Amendment concerns."

Those concerned about HHS purging the airwaves of Big Pharma propaganda need not only fear initiatives from the Trump administration.

Independent Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Angus King (Maine) introduced legislation last week that would ban drugmakers from using direct-to-consumer advertising outright, not only on TV and radio, but on social media, digital platforms, and in print as well.

"The American people are sick and tired of greedy pharmaceutical companies spending billions of dollars on absurd TV commercials pushing their outrageously expensive prescription drugs," Sanders said in a statement.

"The American people don’t want to see misleading and deceptive prescription drug ads on television. They want us to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and ban these bogus ads."

An Axios-Ipsos poll conducted last year found that 59% of Americans support banning TV pharma ads.

Unlike the Trump administration's potential policies, the End Prescription Drug Ads Now Act might not survive a constitutional challenge, given that Congress is barred from making any law abridging the freedom of speech.

The independent lawmakers noted in their joint statement that HHS Secretary Kennedy is not the only relevant party who has expressed an interest in clearing the airwaves; the American Medical Association has similarly endorsed a ban.

"The widespread use of direct-to-consumer advertising by pharmaceutical companies drives up costs and doesn’t necessarily make patients healthier," said King.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Trump takes aim again at prescription drug prices — could drop '30% to 80%'



President Donald Trump announced Sunday that he would be signing an executive order to cut prescription prices "almost immediately, by 30% to 80%."

The vehicle for these price reductions will be a new "MOST FAVORED NATION'S POLICY" mandating that the U.S. pays the same price for drugs as whichever country pays the lowest price globally.

Trump has long discussed using an index of international drug prices — in countries such as Canada, Britain, and Japan — to set the price that Medicare would ultimately pay for drugs administered stateside by doctors. The plan, and related legislative initiatives, faced significant opposition by the pharmaceutical industry and its bipartisan allies in Congress.

After signing a slew of executive orders in 2020 aimed at controlling and lowering drug prices, Trump issued an order on Sept. 13, 2020, seeking to establish most favored nation pricing for Medicare drug payments and to ensure that "Americans [do] not bear extra burdens to compensate for the shortfalls that result from the nationalized public healthcare systems of wealthy countries abroad."

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services subsequently issued an interim final rule implementing the executive order, which multiple pharmaceutical industry trade groups sued to kill.

Not long after courts blocked the most favored nation rule, the Biden administration rescinded it.

Trump evidently figures he has a better shot this time around, even though many of the price reduction plan's opponents are still in office.

'We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years.'

"For many years the World has wondered why Prescription Drugs and Pharmaceuticals in the United States of America were SO MUCH HIGHER IN PRICE THAN THEY WERE IN ANY OTHER NATION, SOMETIMES BEING FIVE TO TEN TIMES MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE SAME DRUG, MANUFACTURED IN THE EXACT SAME LABORATORY OR PLANT, BY THE SAME COMPANY?" the president wrote on Truth Social. "It was always difficult to explain and very embarrassing because, in fact, there was no correct or rightful answer."

According to recent analysis conducted by RAND Health Care on behalf of the Department of Health and Human Services, U.S. drug prices for both brands and generics were nearly 2.78 times as high as prices in comparison countries. Even after adjustments for American rebates, U.S. prices for brand drugs were apparently at least 3.22 times as high as in other countries.

"The Pharmaceutical/Drug Companies would say, for years, that it was Research and Development Costs, and that all of these costs were, and would be, for no reason whatsoever, borne by the 'suckers' of America, ALONE," continued Trump. "Campaign Contributions can do wonders, but not with me, and not with the Republican Party. We are going to do the right thing, something that the Democrats have fought for many years."

'It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America.'

Trump noted that while relative costs will come down for American buyers, they will "rise throughout the World in order to equalize and, for the first time in many years, bring FAIRNESS TO AMERICA!"

Big Pharma lobbyists began complaining in advance of Trump signing the executive order, which the president indicated last week would be "one of the most important announcements that have been made in many years about a certain subject."

"This Foreign First Pricing scheme is a bad deal for American patients. Importing foreign prices will cut billions of dollars from Medicare with no guarantee that it helps patients or improves their access to medicines," Stephen Ubl, the CEO of the lobbying group Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement obtained by The Hill.

"It jeopardizes the hundreds of billions our member companies are planning to invest in America, making us more reliant on China for innovative medicines," added Ubl.

Trump has already taken action on the drug pricing front this year, directing his administration in February to increase enforcement of drug price transparency requirements and to promote "universal access to clear and accurate healthcare prices."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

YouTube removes Jordan Peterson's interview with RFK Jr., citing vaccine 'misinformation'



YouTube has removed Dr. Jordan Peterson's recent interview with Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from its platform, claiming the conversation was in violation of its "general vaccine misinformation policy."

The duo — whose dialogue the Google-owned platform determined should not be heard by prospective voters — have been joined by countless critics in denouncing the move.

In the 95-minute interview published on June 5, entitled "Rekindling the Spirit of the Classic Democrat," Peterson, a clinical psychologist, broached various topics with the presidential candidate, including Kennedy's candidacy, COVID-19 vaccines, the collapse of the mainstream media, woke ideological capture, the environment, and the possibility of salvaging the Democratic Party.

Some in the liberal media have taken issue in particular with Kennedy's suggestion that the "soup of toxic chemicals," including "endocrine disruptors," that children are allegedly being exposed to may be linked to "a lot of the sexual dysphoria that we're seeing."

The Independent highlighted Kennedy's suggestion that "There’s atrazine throughout our water supply. ... Atrazine, by the way, if you in a lab put atrazine in a tank full of frogs, it will chemically castrate and forcefully feminize every frog in there. And 10% of the frogs, the male frogs will turn into fully viable females able to produce viable eggs. If it’s doing that to frogs, it could, there’s a lot of other evidence that it’s doing to human beings as well."

YouTube said in a statement Monday, "We removed a video from the Jordan Peterson channel for violating YouTube’s general vaccine misinformation policy, which prohibits content that alleges that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities."

The platform's vaccine misinformation policy states, "Don't post content on YouTube if it includes harmful misinformation about currently approved and administered vaccines."

Discussions of vaccine safety, particularly "content alleging that vaccines cause chronic side effects, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities," along with remarks about the efficacy and ingredients of vaccines are verboten.

For instance, YouTube forbids the suggestion that vaccines can cause cancer or diabetes; do not reduce the risk of contracting illness; "contain substances that are not on the vaccine ingredient list, such as biological matter from fetuses"; and that vaccines can cause chronic side effects such as infertility.

Kennedy, the 69-year-old son of assassinated former U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and nephew of assassinated former President John F. Kennedy, stressed that this censorship amounts to "blatant interference in the electoral process" and further evidence that YouTube is a "propaganda outlet." He also thanked Elon Musk, noting that Twitter continues to host the video.

In a Sunday Twitter thread, the Democratic presidential candidate wrote, "Maybe you can help me figure out what 'misinformation' was in this interview. ... Do you really need Big Tech censors to decide what you would hear? Or would you prefer to be treated as a competent adult who can listen to various viewpoints and come to his or her own conclusions?"

Peterson denounced the "commissars" at YouTube for what he similarly regarded as election interference, adding, "If there were any real journalists left among the legacy media they'd be up in arms about this."

Extra to chastising the mainstream media for its apparent indifference to the silencing of a presidential candidate by a corporate behemoth, Peterson called out Democrats, stating, "The slippery slope is now headed your way and you richly deserve it."

It would appear some Democrats are happy to see Biden's top Democratic opponent silenced.

Bakari Sellers, a CNN commentator and former Democratic state representative in South Carolina, recently told The Hill that Kennedy "is probably the best example of an apple falling from the tree and rolling into a whole other orchard — parroting Putin talking points and so on. He is not John, he is not Robert, and he is more associated with the likes of [podcaster] Joe Rogan and Elon Musk than he is with James Clyburn or Hakeem Jeffries."

"You can’t let cancers metastasize," added Sellers.

YouTube's excision of Kennedy's interview from its platform is not the first time Silicon Valley has attempted to squelch the speech of Biden's rival.

In February 2021, Instagram shut down his account, claiming Kennedy repeatedly shared "debunked claims about the coronavirus or vaccines." That ban was reversed after Kennedy announced his presidential bid in April.

Last summer, Instagram and its parent company Facebook removed the accounts for Kennedy's nonprofit, Children's Health Defense, from their platforms, again claiming they had advanced "misinformation" during the COVID-19 pandemic, reported the New York Times.

Kennedy has invited the American public to "make a video and post it to @YouTube telling them what you think" as it pertains to the platform's apparent decision to remain a "propaganda outlet" rather than "a modern-day public square."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Liberal MSNBC host tells Peter Hotez not to debate RFK Jr.; likens Kennedy to a Holocaust denier



Vaccine promoter Peter Hotez remains unwilling to agree to a debate with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over whether the Democratic presidential candidate's criticisms of the COVID-19 vaccines amount to "misinformation" — even though Joe Rogan and a cadre of interested parties have together volunteered to donate over $2.6 million to the charity of his choosing.

Hotez appears more than happy to talk, just not to those with dissenting viewpoints for charity's sake.

He appeared Sunday on MSNBC's "Mehdi Hasan Show," in part to peddle his new book, but also to take more digs at Kennedy, suggesting that joining him on Rogan's podcast for a debate would "turn it into 'The Jerry Springer Show.'"

Hasan, in turn, condemned the prospect of debate and likened Kennedy to a "Holocaust denier."

What's the background?

TheBlaze previously reported that Hotez, a self-described "internationally-recognized physician-scientist in neglected tropical diseases and vaccine development," drew Rogan's ire on Saturday by circulating a hit piece from a bankrupted leftist blog that bemoaned Spotify's reluctance to censor the podcast host over so-called "misinformation."

The article, by Anna Merlan, focused on Rogan's recent interview with Kennedy, in which the two discussed the possible fallout from various pharmaceutical initiatives, including the COVID-19 vaccines.

Hotez tweeted, "Spotify Has Stopped Even Sort of Trying to Stem Joe Rogan’s Vaccine Misinformation. It’s really true ⁦@annamerlan⁩ just awful. And from all the online attacks I’m receiving after this absurd podcast, it’s clear many actually believe this nonsense."

Rogan quickly fired back with a proposal: "Peter, if you claim what RFKjr is saying is 'misinformation' I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit."

Others have since volunteered funds to the charity debate pot, reportedly now over $2.62, including Cosmos founder Jae Kwon ($777,000), kickboxer Andrew Tate ($500,000), billionaire investor Bill Ackman ($150,000), Steve Kirsch ($100,00), and podcast host Tim Pool ($100,000).

RFK Jr. accepted the challenge: "Peter. Let’s finally have the respectful, congenial, informative debate that the American people deserve."

Hotez responded to Rogan, but then quickly deleted the tweet: "Be serious Joe, that's what you throw out for your hunting buddies on a weekend. $50 million endowment (which You/Spotify/RFK Jr. can easily afford), not for me but so we can continue making low-cost patent-free vaccines for the world's poor. Preceded by RFK Jr.'s public apology."

While Hotez later stated he was "happy to come on and clear the air," he did not agree to the debate.

Echoing a popular sentiment online, scientist Bret Weinstein noted, "If Hotez believed his own press, he’d debate. Big money going to a good cause neutralizes the 'dignifying' argument and winning would be a decisive victory against RFK Jr.’s perspective, which gains ground daily. But @PeterHotez would have to win and he can’t, for obvious reasons."

Elon Musk jumped into the fray by replying, "Maybe @PeterHotez just hates charity," adding, "He's afraid of a public debate, because he knows he's wrong."

\u201c@joerogan He\u2019s afraid of a public debate, because he knows he\u2019s wrong\u201d
— Joe Rogan (@Joe Rogan) 1687045901

Tom Nichols, a staff writer at the Atlantic, pre-empted Hasan in suggesting that "no medical professional should ever agree to this. Never. It elevates the conspiracy guy, demeans the medical professional, and will only convince the kooks out there that RFK is right because a real doctor took the time to debate him. Never debate a conspiracy theorist."

Rogan said in reply, "That would be a great suggestion if you could assure that the industry you were representing wasn’t completely captured by heartless monsters who have a history of some of the biggest criminal fines in human history because their deception has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives. It would be a great suggestion if the industry you were defending didn’t occasionally look at human beings as an opportunity to generate insane wealth regardless of the tragic consequences."

"You can't do that, so... maybe it would be a good idea to have a f***ing debate," added Rogan, who went on to retweet a video by Matt Orfalea calling Hotez "The Great Double-Talking Vaccine Scientist."

\u201cThe Great Double-Talking Vaccine Scientist\u201d
— Matt Orfalea (@Matt Orfalea) 1686762931

Hasan's warm embrace

Hotez took a break from retweeting posts praising his record Sunday to appear on Hasan's show.

Dressed in a lab coat, Hotez told the MSNBC host, "During the COVID pandemic ... 200,000 Americans needlessly perished because they believed the anti-vaccine disinformation and refused to take a COVID vaccine during the Delta wave and Ba1 Omicron wave in 2021, 2022, after vaccines were widely available. So the point is anti-vaccine disinformation, it's always done a lot of damage and harm, but now it's a lethal force in the United States."

"That's why we have to have that discussion," Hotez said, adding he was still happy to do so one on one with Rogan, just not with Kennedy present.

“In science, we don’t typically do debates," he told Hasan. "What we do is we write scientific papers. … One doesn’t typically debate science. Maybe the one-off discussion of evolution versus creationism and that sort of thing, but that’s not what we do in science.”

Hasan — whose network advanced the claim in 2021 that the COVID vaccine completely protects against symptoms and transmission — noted he was "fed up" with invitations to debate the issues, intimating that Hotez's writing and past appearances on corporate news programs were themselves satisfactory.

After stressing his antipathy for corrective exchanges of ideas, Hasan then accused Kennedy of contributing to a "vaccine misinformation culture that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of lives" and likened him to a "Holocaust denier."

The MSNBC host invoked his own book on the art of debating, then stressed the importance of Hotez avoiding a debate for fear of "elevating the cranks."

\u201c.@PeterHotez responds to being asked to debate anti-vaxxer RFK Jr.\n\n"Anti-vaccine disinformation...is now a lethal force in the United States. I offered to go on Joe Rogan but not to turn it into the Jerry Springer show with having RFK Jr. on."\u201d
— The Mehdi Hasan Show (@The Mehdi Hasan Show) 1687136665

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Vaccine stocks nosedive after Biden administration makes global vow



The stock prices of several coronavirus vaccine developers took sharp downturns on Wednesday, after the Biden administration announced it supports stripping away vaccine patent protections so the formulas can be shared with the world to produce generics.

What are the details?

U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai announced in the afternoon that the administration supports waiving intellectual property protections for COVID-19 vaccines.

Tai said in a statement:

"This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures. The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines. We will actively participate in text-based negotiations at the World Trade Organization (WTO) needed to make that happen. Those negotiations will take time given the consensus-based nature of the institution and the complexity of the issues involved.

CNBC reported that following the news, shares of vaccine producers Pfizer, Biontech, Novavax, and Moderna all plunged "to session lows."

Pfizer, Biontech, Novavax, Moderna shares plunge to session lows after U.S. backs waiving patent protections on Cov… https://t.co/vvvLPDDr1X

— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) 1620242460.0

The outlet reported that following the sharp drops, "Pfizer ended its trading day flat, while Moderna lost 6.1%; Johnson & Johnson shed a modest 0.4%."

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that represents several of the pharmaceutical companies impacted, slammed the Biden administration's move.

"In the midst of a deadly pandemic, the Biden Administration has taken an unprecedented step that will undermine our global response to the pandemic and compromise safety," the group's president and CEO, Stephen J. Ubi, told CNBC. "This decision will sow confusion between public and private partners, further weaken already strained supply chains and foster the proliferation of counterfeit vaccines."

Reactions to the news were split on social media, with some people slamming the move and saying that pharmaceutical firms should be able to profit off the development of the vaccines. One person wrote, "This current administration has no understanding of the great lengths that went into development of these life saving vaccines. These companies should be able to profit from there (sic) hard work."

Another expressed concern over the precedent that the Biden administration's policy sets, tweeting, "Pretty extraordinary step. Once this box is opened I think it will be hard to limit it only to COVID. What about cancer drugs? What if we get a cure for Alzheimer's? Are those really less important than COVID-19? This has major ramifications for IP going forward in the U.S."

But others argued that sharing the vaccine technology was more important than profits. Akshaya Kumar, the crisis advocacy for Human Rights Watch, wrote, "Thanks for taking this bold position @AmbassadorTai! By doing so, the US may help turn the tide on this pandemic and save countless lives globally."

Some pointed out the pharmaceutical companies had received a hefty amount of taxpayer funds for the speedy development of the shots under former President Donald Trump's "Operation Warp Speed."

One person replied, "Taxpayers funded this, not the companies. They took almost no risk, just reaped reward. All this is doing is asking them -- who, again, did not pay for this and risked functionally nothing -- to accept slightly less of a reward."

Time magazine reported in December that Operation Warp Speed "allocated more than $12 billion to vaccine makers" for the development (including research and clinical studies) and manufacturing of the first 300 million doses.

Six deals were made between the U.S. government and individual firms or partnerships, including Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Novavax, and undertakings by AstraZeneca-Oxford, Sanofi-GlaxoSmithKline, and Pfizer-BioNTech.

Fox Business reported in March that the deals are still rolling in for approved U.S. vaccine producers not only from the federal government, but from countries abroad.

At that point, Pfizer and BioNTech expected to split $15 billion in vaccine revenues by the end of 2021, while Moderna expected $18.4 billion in advanced sales and Johnson & Johnson was on on track to pull in roughly $10 billion by the end of the year.

Those potential revenues could look entirely different if the formulas are spread to other firms globally.