What does being "pro-vax" mean?
That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
That you believe in any claims of vaccine efficacy made by the manufacturers or the FDA and are more then willing to have them injected into your body?
If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity?
It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated.
This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval.
And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.
I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe.
Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe?
Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today?
But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be? Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today?
> is an entity that is known to lie
What are you referring to?
> the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.
The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.
It is a question of how aligned the individual's incentives and the incentives of the medical body in question. And often it is extremely misaligned. So that is what is I mean when I said there is "no incentive".
So what do I mean by that?
When such an organization recommend X, it just mean that if everyone follows that recommendation, the population wide metric, that can be immediately measured or that is often measured will show good beneficial result.
So here if people follow the recommendation two things can happen
1. The number of covid deaths will drop. This is something that will show up immediately, because everyone was focused on daily death toll.
2. A substantial number of people will have adverse effects. This is something that can be managed (in terms of public opinion)
So the incentive of the organization end up being favorable to the recommendation despite the very good chance of point 2 happening. With financial incentives, this is just more pronounced...
> What are you referring to?
Any group of human beings.
Regardless, as far as the statistics about things like how vaccines changed covid deaths, and any change in non-covid deaths, a study of tens of millions of people found a very large drop in covid deaths among the vaccinated... and actually no increase in other cause morbidity either (different study than the OP study). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
Even trained professionals fail to do that regularly...
But an FDA approved, Phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial is the strongest form of evidence that we have for anything at all.
Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air? Do you take any other medicines?
All of those are less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.
Only if you blindly trust the entities that is doing the studies.
Seriously, I am not sure how anyone with a couple of brain cells between their ears can do that.
>Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air?
I don't. But one don't have a choice. But for other things, one certainly do.
I work in clinical trials. I know how they work. You do not.
Ah, that makes perfect sense.
It is hard for a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.
Surprised you don't fall out of your own shoes in your upside-down world.
Clinical trials don't happen "behind closed doors and come out with only a result."
Clinical trials are run independently across hundreds if not thousands of research sites. The people who run these studies do not work for the pharma companies. They do not work with each other. They do not know whether the drugs they're giving each patient is the real drug or the placebo. They therefore have no way to coordinate fraud with each other and actually execute it at a scale required to both change the results and be undetectable (i.e. massive, systematic deviations on top of randomized data that produces something other than just "more noise"). Each of the thousands of people who would need to cooperate in this conspiracy would be risking years in prison, the destruction of their businesses, and the cancelation of their medical licenses... for... literally no benefit? The people actually running these studies (which are not the pharma companies themselves) don't get paid more or less money based on the results!
Every step from initial data entry through to data analysis is auditable and inspected by the FDA. The statistical analysis plan is written prior to any data being collected, and any ad-hoc deviation from the pre-established analysis plan must be defended to the FDA. No "data corrections" can happen once analysis has started without very specific audit and approval by FDA for each individual data correction.
Again: this is a really remarkable system that is a lot of fun to learn about if you have some curiosity. It's not perfect, but it's especially strong at the massive scale of the vaccine trials because there would be so many data points that need to be manipulated by so many independent parties that it's just a ridiculous notion.
It has to do with incentives and capability.
Please describe the specific threat vector you're concerned about. Is it a rogue auditor changing some numbers around? Is it dozens of rogue reviewers just lying about what they see? Is it bribes? To whom? To do what, specifically?
Do you think the market is currently just flooded with ineffective or unsafe drugs because the FDA is bad at its job?
Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this?
Or are they also in cahoots, and they just love spending their profits on drugs that are either ineffective or actively damaging their risk pool?
Surely you must have an actual theory of how this fraud happens, otherwise I suppose you just believe things with no evidence (but make it smug).
"Skeptic" brainworm got another one, it appears. So skeptical (and uncurious) that he's rendered himself incapable of evaluating evidence. Many such cases, unfortunately.
They have. That is why they don't sell an insurance against vaccine injuries...
First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance.
Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients, and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy.
You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false), with something completely unrelated, which is that governments generally create a first-order insurance fund for vaccines in order to prevent unpredictable litigation costs from completely obliterating the economic viability of making vaccines.
By the way, these public insurance funds do not cover cases of manufacturing defects, fraud, or negligence. So even giving you the benefit of the doubt on each of your points of confusion... it's still 100% irrelevant to whatever argument you think you're making.
Again: Some more curiosity about the world would really do you wonders!
Why don't you stick to answering the point that I am raising, instead of responding with some...arbitrary thing...
The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?
The "government fund" does not anyway prevent existence of such an insurance. So why is that not a thing, given that there is a large number of people who are worried about it, and is probably willing to pay large premiums for it...
It is interesting that you are aware of this government fund, and still brings up corporate libaility claim (which the fund makes irrelavant) shows that you cannot even reconcile the very the facts that you are aware of...
> The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?
You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insurance against are the vaccines, under the state-backed programs.
I have already articulated why the state-backed programs do not obviate the need for product liability insurance. You should go back and read it again, but (again), with a little bit more actual curiosity.
Anyway, it's clear you don't have any actual theory (or base understanding) about how any of this works, or what the actual nefarious actions are, what's actually wrong, etc.
Until you can articulate specifically what you think is "going on" here, it's not worth my time trying to educate you on concepts like insurance coverage.
But anyway I actually do like your idea of selling a high-premium insurance to dumbasses for vaccine injuries. I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.
I dare you, I double dare you...
>it's not worth my time trying to educate..
Exactly why I am not spending too much time to educate you...
The flaw in your reasoning is here
>You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false)
I didn't confuse anything. I went of slightly in a tangent because I don't want to spend too much time to educating you. Because ultimately our differences arise from what or what not we trust or what scale conspiracy we think is possible or not, or how broad or narrow our consideration of the reality is. You will never admit that and will go and on and on...Don't have time for that. Sorry.