Hunger and bullets: Palestinians recall Rafah aid massacre horror
Khan Younis, Gaza – Yazan Musleh, 13, lies in a hospital bed set up in a tent on the grounds of Nasser Hospital, his t-shirt pulled up to reveal a large white bandage on his thin torso.
Beside him, his father, Ihab, sits fretfully, still shaken by the bloodied dawn he and his sons lived through on Sunday when Israeli forces opened fire on thousands of people gathered to receive aid from the Israeli-conceived, and United States-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
Ihab, 40, had taken Yazan and his 15-year-old brother, Yazid, from their shelter in al-Mawasi, Khan Younis, to the Rafah distribution point that the GHF operates.
They set out before dawn, walking for about an hour and a half to get to the al-Alam Roundabout roundabout in Rafah, near the distribution point.
Worried about the size of the gathering, hungry crowd, Ihab told his sons to wait for him on an elevation near the GHF gates.
'When I looked behind the hill, I saw several tanks not far away,' he says. 'A feeling of dread came over me. What if they opened fire or something happened? I prayed for God's protection.'
As the crowd moved closer to the gates, heavy gunfire erupted from all directions.'I was terrified. I immediately looked towards my sons on the hill, and saw Yazan get shot and collapse,' he recalls.
Yazid, also sitting by his brother's bedside, describes the moments of terror.
'We were standing on the hill as our father told us, and suddenly, the tanks opened fire.' He says. 'My brother was hit in the stomach immediately.'
'I saw his intestines spilling out – it was horrifying. Then people helped rush him to the hospital in a donkey cart.'
Down by the gates, Ihab was struggling to reach his sons, trying to fight against the crowd while avoiding the shots still ringing out.
'Shooting was coming from every direction – from tanks, quadcopters.
'I saw people helping my son, eventually dragging him away.'
When Ihab managed to get away from the crowd, he ran as best as his malnourished body could manage, towards Nasser Hospital, in hopes that Yazan had been taken there. It felt like more than an hour, he says.
At Nasser Hospital, he learned that Yazan had been taken into surgery.
'I finally breathed. I thanked God he was still alive. I had completely lost hope,' he says.
The bullet that hit Yazan had torn through his intestines and spleen, and the doctors say he needs long and intensive treatment.
Sitting by him is his mother, Iman, who asks despairingly why anyone would shoot at people trying to get food. She and Ihab have five children, the youngest is a seven-month-old girl.
'I went to get food for my children. Hunger is killing us,' says Ihab.
'These aid distributions are known to be degrading and humiliating – but we're desperate. I'm desperate because my children are starving, and even then, we are shot at?'
He had tried to get aid once before, he says, but both times he came away empty-handed.
'The first time, there was a deadly stampede. We barely escaped. This time, my son was wounded and again… nothing,' he says.
But he knows he cannot stop trying.
'I'll risk it for my family. Either I come back alive or I die. I'm desperate. Hunger is killing us.'
The GHF, marketed as a neutral humanitarian mechanism, was launched in early 2025 and uses private US military contractors to 'secure the distribution points'.The GHF's head, Jake Wood, resigned his post two days before distribution began, citing concerns that the foundation would not be impartial or act in accordance with humanitarian principles.
Five days later, on May 30, the Boston Consulting Group, which had been part of the planning and implementation of the foundation, withdrew its team and terminated its association with GHF.
International aid organisations have been unanimous in criticising the GHF and its methods.
Lying nearby in the tent ward is Mohammed al-Homs, 40, a father of five.
He had also headed out early on Sunday to try to get some food for his family, but moments after arriving at the al-Alam Roundabout roundabout, 'I was shot twice – once in the leg and once in the mouth, shattering my front teeth,' he says.
'I collapsed, there were so many injured and dead around me. Everyone was screaming and running. Gunfire was coming from tanks, drones everywhere. It felt like the end of the world.'
He lay bleeding on the ground for what felt like an hour, as medical teams were not able to reach the injured.
Then, word spread that the gates had opened for distribution, and those who could move started heading towards the centre.
It was only then that people could start moving the wounded to a nearby medical point.
'This was my first time trying to get aid, and it will be my last,' Mohammed says.
'I didn't expect to survive. We went looking for food for our hungry children and were met with drones and tanks.'
Also in the tent is someone who had succeeded in getting an aid package on the first day of distribution, on May 27, and decided to try again on Sunday: 36-year-old Khaled al-Lahham.
Al-Lahham is taking care of 10 family members: his parents, one aunt, and seven siblings, all of whom are displaced in the tents of al-Mawasi.
He had managed to catch a ride with five friends that morning, driving as close as they could to the al-Alam Roundabout roundabout.
As the distribution time approached, the six friends started getting out of the car.
'Suddenly, there was loud gunfire all around and people screaming. I felt a sharp pain in my leg – a bullet had passed clean through my thigh,' says Khaled, who did not make it fully out of the car.
'I was screaming and bleeding while people around me ran and screamed. The shooting was frenzied,' he adds. 'There were tanks, quadcopters – fire came from every direction.'
Injured, Khaled could not get out of the car and huddled there until one of his friends managed to return and drive him to the hospital.
'I never imagined I'd face death for a box of food,' Khaled says.
'If they don't want to distribute the aid, why do they lie to people and kill them like this?
'This is all deliberate. Humiliate us, degrade us, then kill us – for food?'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
35 minutes ago
- New York Post
Vance says Musk's public feud with Trump is a ‘huge mistake,' hopes billionaire ‘comes back into fold'
Vice President JD Vance said it was a huge mistake for Elon Musk to be at war with President Trump amid their escalating feud and is hopeful that the billionaire Tesla founder 'comes back into the fold.' 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance said during an interview with comedian Theo Von, which was released on Saturday. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Advertisement Vance's appearance on Von's popular podcast, 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' was recorded as Trump and billionaire Musk traded barbs on social media over the latter's complaints about the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act. 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so,' Vance said. 'Hopefully, Elon figures it out, comes back into the fold. I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon. But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.' Advertisement 3 Vice President JD Vance appeared on Theo Von's podcast. X/JDVance The SpaceX founder signaled support for impeaching Trump and replacing him with Vance in one of several jabs directed at the commander in chief. 'President vs Elon. Who wins? My money's on Elon. Trump should be impeached and JD Vance should replace him,' right-wing commentator Ian Miles Cheong wrote on X. To which Musk replied: 'Yes.' Advertisement Vance appears to be fully in Trump's corner amid the public spat between the two billionaires — and expressed his support of the president in an X post late Thursday night. 'President Trump has done more than any person in my lifetime to earn the trust of the movement he leads. I'm proud to stand beside him,' the veep wrote. In an earlier post, as the Trump-Musk drama was simmering down on social media, Vance had teased that he would be appearing on Von's show. 'Slow news day, what are we even going to talk about?' Vance wrote on X. Advertisement 3 President Donald Trump points at Elon Musk during a conversation inside the Oval Office of the White House on March 14, 2025. AFP via Getty Images 3 Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump and vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance appear on the first day of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wisc. on July 15, 2024. Getty Images Musk shared the vice president's post and reacted with a laughing emoji. Von previously interviewed both Vance and Trump in the run-up to the 2024 presidential election. Trump's August 2024 appearance on Von's show racked up nearly 17 million views on YouTube. The podcaster later attended Trump's inauguration and made a surprise appearance at a US air base in Qatar, where the president spoke to service members and their families last month.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
U.S. ambassador says Canadians facing device searches, detainment 'not a pattern'
OTTAWA — The American ambassador to Canada is pushing back on Ottawa's travel advice, saying his country doesn't search phones at the border and arguing some Americans travelling here are having a tough time. "We welcome Canadians to come in and invest, to spend their hard-earned Canadian dollars at U.S. businesses," U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra told The Canadian Press in an interview Friday. "If a Canadian has had a disappointing experience coming into the United States, I'm not denying that it happened, but I'm saying it's an isolated event and it is not a pattern." In April, Ottawa updated its advice to Canadians travelling to the United States to warn them about the possibility they might be detained if denied entry. "Expect scrutiny at ports of entry, including of electronic devices," reads the new guidance. There have been reports of Canadians facing intensified scrutiny at the border, having phones searched and, in some cases, being detained. Hoekstra insisted concerns about device searches are not grounded in reality. "Coming to the U.S., that's a decision for the Canadians to make. Searching devices and all of that is not a well-founded fear. We don't do that. America is a welcoming place," he said. He said some Americans have expressed similar concerns about Canada. "I've heard that from Americans coming into Canada as well, OK? Saying, 'You know, we've not received a warm reception when we've gotten to Canadian customs,'" he said. When asked if these reports from American travellers involve arbitrary phone searches and lengthy detainment, Hoekstra said there are consular cases of Americans complaining to the embassy about the Canada Border Services Agency. "We've said, 'OK this may have been an isolated event. There may have been a Canadian border person who was having a bad day, and thought they'd take it out on, you know, somebody across the border,'" he said. In a statement, the CBSA said its officers follow a code of conduct and the federal ethics code that both require them to treat everyone equally, and the agency investigates any complaints of mistreatment. "Employees are expected to conduct themselves in a way that upholds the values of integrity, respect and professionalism at all times," wrote spokeswoman Karine Martel. "Treating people with respect, dignity and fairness is fundamental to our border services officers' relationship with the public and a key part of this is serving all travellers in a non-discriminatory way." Hoekstra said travel to the U.S. is up to individuals. "If you decide that you're not going to come down or whatever, that's your decision and you're missing an opportunity. There are great things to see in America," Hoekstra said. He also noted the case of CNN journalist Christiane Amanpour, who recently said she prepared to visit the U.S. last month as if she was "going to North Korea" — with a "burner phone" that didn't carry any personal information — only to experience a warm welcome. "It's like, (let's) get past the rhetoric and let's look at the real experiences that people are having here," Hoekstra said. Airlines have been cutting flights between Canada and the U.S. due to a slump in demand, and Flight Centre Travel Group Canada reported a nearly 40 per cent drop in flights between the two countries year-over-year in February. A survey in early May conducted by Leger Marketing for the Association for Canadian Studies found 52 per cent of respondents feel that "it is no longer safe for all Canadians travelling to the United States," with 29 per cent disagreeing and 19 per cent saying they were unsure. Roughly the same proportion said they personally feel unwelcome in the U.S. LGBTQ+ groups have opted against attending World Pride events in Washington and United Nations events in New York, citing scrutiny at the border as the Trump administration scales back protections for transgender and nonbinary people. This report by The Canadian Press was first published June 7, 2025. Dylan Robertson, The Canadian Press Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Patents and economies of scale support Pfizer's wide moat
Pfizer's innovative business should grow faster after it divests its off-patent division Upjohn in 2020 to create Viatris and Mylan. With fewer older medications and fewer patent losses, Pfizer is well-positioned for consistent growth, excluding the erratic sales of Covid-19-related products. The company is less vulnerable to any one patent loss thanks to its wide range of medications. Because of its more complex manufacturing process and more affordable prices, Pfizer's stronger position in the vaccine marketwhich includes the pneumococcal vaccine Prevnarmakes it more resilient to generic competition. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with PFE. With a 30% to 80% reduction, Trump's executive order would establish a "most favored nation" policy in which the US would pay the same amount for prescription medications as the nation with the lowest price. It is anticipated that this policy, which was previously blocked by courts, will reduce the US's annual drug spending of over $400 billion, saving taxpayers over a seven-year period. Given that drug prices in the United States are high when compared to other countries, Pfizer's U.S. revenue could be drastically impacted by the 30% to 80% price cut, especially for high-margin medications. International reference pricing policies have long been opposed by the pharmaceutical industry, which claims they could hinder innovation and limit access to new companies anticipate that the order will target Medicare and may have an impact on medications not covered by Biden's Inflation Reduction Act. President Trump has said that significant tariffs on pharmaceutical products will probably be announced soon. He has also put a 90-day hold on broader tariffs for the majority of his trading partners to give them time to negotiate. Despite being mostly exempt from tariffs, the biopharma industry is preparing for a possible pharma-specific announcement that might affect global manufacturing strategies. Products made in Europe and imported into the US may be subject to the rumored 25% tariff, necessitating the construction of new facilities that will take years to complete. Due to home country manufacturing, tax benefits, lower production costs, and exposure to currency fluctuations, businesses based in the US and Europe are heavily exposed to European manufacturing. Because drug spending is not cyclical, the direct effect of tariffs on earnings is probably going to be minimal, and the indirect effect of a possible recession should also be minimal. With the exception of small-scale US capacity expansions, biopharma is unlikely to completely reevaluate its manufacturing footprint if pharmaceutical tariffs are implemented but are lifted after 2026 as a result of political pressure from the midterm elections. Leadership in Vaccines Pfizer stands out with its dominant position in vaccines, most notably its highly successful COVID-19 vaccine developed in partnership with BioNTech. This vaccine not only generated significant revenue but also established Pfizer as a leader in mRNA technology, a platform with potential applications in oncology, rare diseases, and beyond. Johnson & Johnson (J&J): J&J also developed a COVID-19 vaccine, but it was less widely adopted due to lower efficacy rates and safety concerns, giving Pfizer a clear advantage in this high-impact area. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK): GSK has a strong vaccine portfolio (e.g., shingles and meningitis vaccines) but did not independently develop a COVID-19 vaccine, relying on partnerships like Sanofi, which delayed its entry and diminished its competitive stance. Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS): BMS has no significant presence in vaccines, focusing instead on oncology and immunology, making Pfizer's vaccine leadership a unique strength. R&D Capabilities and Pipeline Focus Pfizer's R&D efforts are concentrated on high-growth therapeutic areas such as oncology, vaccines, and rare diseases. Its ability to leverage mRNA technology and rapidly develop innovative therapies underscores its R&D prowess. J&J: J&J's R&D spans pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health. While this diversification provides stability, it may dilute J&J's focus on cutting-edge pharmaceutical innovation compared to Pfizer's targeted approach. GSK: GSK excels in respiratory diseases and HIV research, but its pipeline is less broad and lacks the same level of innovation in emerging technologies like mRNA that Pfizer is advancing. BMS: BMS has a strong oncology pipeline, particularly in immuno-oncology, but its narrower focus limits its competitiveness in other high-growth areas where Pfizer thrives, such as vaccines and rare diseases. Global Reach and Market Presence Pfizer operates in over 150 countries, giving it a vast global footprint that enhances its ability to distribute products and capture market share across both developed and emerging markets. J&J: J&J also has a global presence, but its focus is split across pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and consumer health, potentially reducing its pharmaceutical market penetration compared to Pfizer. GSK: GSK is strong in Europe and emerging markets but less dominant in the U.S., the world's largest pharmaceutical market, where Pfizer has a significant advantage. BMS: BMS focuses heavily on the U.S. and Europe, with less presence in emerging markets, limiting its global scale compared to Pfizer. Brand Reputation and Trust The success of Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine has significantly boosted its brand recognition and trust among consumers, healthcare providers, and governments, reinforcing its market position. J&J: J&J enjoys a strong reputation in consumer health, but its pharmaceutical division lacks the same level of visibility and trust as Pfizer's, particularly after COVID-19 vaccine challenges. GSK: GSK is well-regarded in respiratory and HIV treatments but does not have the broad public recognition that Pfizer has achieved. BMS: BMS is respected in oncology but lacks the widespread brand prominence that Pfizer has cultivated. Innovation in Emerging Technologies Pfizer's investment in mRNA technology positions it as a pioneer in pharmaceutical innovation, with potential applications in vaccines, cancer treatments, and more, giving it a forward-looking edge. J&J: J&J innovates in medical devices and consumer health but trails Pfizer in adopting next-generation pharmaceutical technologies like mRNA. GSK: GSK focuses on innovation in respiratory and HIV treatments but has not made significant advances in mRNA or other emerging platforms. BMS: BMS drives innovation in immuno-oncology but lacks Pfizer's breadth and leadership in cutting-edge technologies. Pfizer's competitive edge over Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, and Bristol Myers Squibb lies in its unmatched leadership in vaccines, particularly through mRNA technology, combined with a robust R&D pipeline, extensive global reach, substantial financial resources, strong brand reputation, and a focus on innovation. While J&J benefits from diversification, GSK from efficiency, and BMS from oncology expertise, none rival Pfizer's comprehensive strengths across these critical areas, ensuring its dominance in the pharmaceutical landscape. Pfizer's broad moat is supported by patents, economies of scale, and a strong distribution network. Strong pricing power derived from Pfizer's patent-protected medications allows the company to produce returns on investment that exceed its cost of capital. The company can develop the next generation of drugs before generic competition appears thanks to the patents. Furthermore, even though Pfizer has a wide range of products, there is some product concentration, as Prevnar accounts for slightly more than 10% of total sales (not including sales of the COVID-19 vaccine).However, because of the vaccine's complicated manufacturing process and comparatively low cost, we don't anticipate typical generic competition. Ibrance and Eliquis each account for nearly 10% of sales. On the other hand, we anticipate that new products will eventually lessen the competition from generic versions of important medications. In order to lessen the pressure on margins from lost sales of high-margin drugs, Pfizer's operating structure permits cost-cutting after patent losses. All things considered, Pfizer's well-established product line generates the massive cash flows required to cover the typical $800 million in development expenses for each new medication. For smaller pharmaceutical companies without Pfizer's resources, the company's robust distribution network positions it as a solid partner. On April 15, President Donald Trump issued an executive order outlining possible policy changes intended to reduce the cost of pharmaceuticals in the United States. The biopharma industry is looking forward to these changes because they have the potential to either help or hurt innovation. In the worst situation, international price benchmarks have the potential to drastically cut US drug prices and lessen financial incentives for international drug development. On the plus side, eliminating the "pill penalty" that only grants small molecule medications nine years of Medicare negotiation protection may promote innovation across all treatment modalities. Trump's executive order may have a positive or negative impact on the industry, but it has no effect on valuations or uncertainty ratings. The protection period is not specified in Trump's request that US Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. collaborate with Congress to address the pill penalty, which is contingent upon Congressional action. Since innovation and a favorable mergers and acquisitions climate support long-term pricing power and offset possible short-term tariff pressure, rising tax rates, and approval delays, the biopharma industry seems undervalued. Due to liver damage in a clinical trial, Pfizer has announced the discontinuation of danuglipron, an oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist. In the anticipated $200 billion global GLP-1 market by 2031, the company sought to provide a potential second-to-market oral small molecule GLP-1 agonist, behind Lilly's orforglipron. Clinical trial failures and declining demand for Pfizer's COVID vaccine and antiviral medication have hurt the company's growth. Because of its diverse pipeline and portfolio, Pfizer is expected to have a wide-moat case, protecting it from the effects of individual program failures, especially those involving high-risk programs like danuglipron. Other medication candidates might benefit from Pfizer's objective of turning danuglipron into a once-daily business could use its $15 billion acquisition budget to fund the development of more sophisticated medication candidates. Efforts in Genetic Engineering: A solid growth driver for Pfizer is the strong pipeline of innovative treatment options, especially in oncology and immunology, which take the leap with cutting-edge scientific technology. To be more specific, Pfizer's resource allocation to immuno-oncology is evident, developing of checkpoint inhibitors (e.g., PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors) and chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies. For instance, this method of treatment mitigates the immune system's ability to detect and destroy the specified cancer cells by varying the immune system response or, in some cases, by using specially modified T-cells that can identify the particular antigens on tumors that are solely expressed in those particular tumors, which are in question. This is the area of advancement where Pfizer has outdone the rest as they are perfecting monoclonal antibody formatsdesigning them in a way that they will bind more tightly and specifically to targets using protein engineeringand they are also testing out bispecific antibodies that trigger switches at two targets, therefore enhancing healing by more than one method. The pipeline is further supported by vast R&D investment in gene therapy and precision medicine, which utilize adeno-associated virus (AAV) vector platforms for gene delivery and next-generation sequencing for actionable mutation identification respectively. These endeavors are aimed at enhancing the overall patient health and market potential of the drugs by changing the treatment convention from testing a wide spectrum to one that is genotype-driven. Clinical trials are usually designed in a way to be fast-tracked so that they can move quickly to the next stage of development. By focusing on such advanced technologies, Pfizer is embarking on capturing a large section of the market with high-growth therapeutic branches, thus gaining revenue through innovation guided by complex disease biology. Revenue Growth: The launching of these high-value treatments is expected to increase revenue as well as drive down costs for Pfizer. Most of the drugs that are released in the onco-immunology field possess a technical edge and therapeutic effectiveness, therefore, these new treatements often demand high price. These drugs are capable of pumping up profits significantly once they clear regulatory hurdles and find their way onto the market. take the example of just-above successful immuno-oncology drug sales, which always have brisk selling and marvelous sales. In addition, Pfizer can speed-up the whole clinical process with something like adaptive trial designs, this process will be quicker and thus benefits are obtained faster from the new products. Impact on profitability The weight on profitability depends on the ratio of costs and returns. What is actually known is that lamas like the checkpoint inhibitors and CAR-T treatments that are so good require a lot of investment in R&D. But there is an inherent advantage for these drugs thanks to their patent protection that comes with market exclusivity, which in turn, allows Pfizer to keep its pricing strategy stick and generate very high profits. Success in the selling of the product along the lines of this new dimension along with the efficiency of producing more could prove to be the road to better profitability. However, there are barriers such as competition from other drug companies plus the worry of the price cuts from payers that can erode this success. So if Pfizer is able to eliminate the competition and stays ahead in the game by reducing costs as well, these high markups brought about by the introduction of such innovative drugs should positively affect the total profitability of the company. Generic competition, possible changes to government drug pricing policies, the more stringent FDA, and more powerful managed-care and pharmacy benefit managers present Pfizer with difficulties in drug development. In some disease areas, developing new drugs is getting harder, and pharmacy benefit managers and managed-care organizations have grown to be strong players with the ability to bargain for cheaper drug costs. Nearly one-fourth of the company's total sales are generated by its medications, Eliquis, Ibrance, and Xtandi, and they are heavily exposed to the Medicare channel. Given that Pfizer's product portfolio is less vulnerable to potential litigation, the company's base-case annual legal costs, assuming a 50% probability of future costs associated with product governance ESG risks, come close to 1% of non-GAAP net income. Pfizer's valuation multiples highlights their strong financial position and potential undervaluation. Their P/E Non-GAAP ratios7.61 (FY1), 7.42 (FY2), and 7.44 (FY3)are lower than JNJ's 14.00 (FY1) and SNY's 10.80 (FY1), suggesting investors may undervalue our earnings potential. The PEG Non-GAAP (FWD) of 1.49 is competitive, higher than SNY's 0.76 but below JNJ's 1.70, reflecting moderate growth prospects. Pfizer's EV/Sales (TTM) of 2.81 is more conservative than JNJ's 4.21, while the EV/EBITDA (FWD) of 7.13 compares favorably to JNJ's 11.45, indicating operational efficiency. The Price to Book (TTM) of 1.44 is significantly lower than JNJ's 5.23, and our Price to Cash Flow (TTM) of 9.29 beats JNJ's 15.67, underscoring robust cash flow generation. These metrics position Pfizer as a value opportunity among peers After the Seagen acquisition, Pfizer released its 2024 guidance, which included a $8 billion COVID-19 product guidance$5 billion less than anticipated. The business admitted that, excluding sales of COVID-19 products, it would not meet the prior growth-rate projection of 6% from 2020 to 2025. Pfizer reaffirmed its support for the dividend, which is regarded as safe and likely to boost stock valuation, despite the deteriorating outlook. Over the next ten years, the company anticipates steady sales as new products counteract older medications that are losing their patent protection. From the middle of 2023 to the end of 2024, Pfizer is anticipated to reduce operating expenses by $4 billion, which will aid the company in adjusting to the waning pandemic and declining sales of COVID-19 products. Growth could be accelerated through acquisitions, and future margin pressure could be reduced through restructuring initiatives. It is estimated that Pfizer's weighted average cost of capital is 7% and its cost of equity is 7.5%. Activist investor Jeffrey Smith's recent stake worth $407 million could presage the much needed turnarounds at Pfizer. Investors and shareholders can reasonably expect further cost-cuts and an efficient use of capital, leading to higher margins and free cashflow. This case could follow the path of Walt Disney, albeit with less drama, where Jeff Ubben of ValueAct had a pivotal role in Disney's turnaround campaign. The large-cap biopharma company Pfizer's debt size, business cyclicality, and debt maturity outlook all contribute to its sound balance sheet and low risk levels. To support opportunistic acquisitions and handle product litigation issues with little market concern, the company should have a strong enough balance sheet. Pfizer spends slightly less on R&D than the industry average, with a mid- to high-teens percentage of sales. Patent losses are offset by the company's robust pipeline of next-generation medications. The company's investment in cutting-edge new medications, mostly aimed at immunology and oncology, improves its standing and increases returns on capital. For biopharma companies in the sector, this balance sheet strength is essential. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.