5 ms·

What are you talking about? You do know the vaccines were granted full FDA approval? How do you think that occured? "Full approval is granted when, over time,

What are you talking about? You do know the vaccines were granted full FDA approval? How do you think that occured? "Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality." https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/full-fda-approval-of-a-covid-19-vaccine-what-you-should-know https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas... Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google: https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-results https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu... wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.

twofornone 4y ago
Why are you so eager to take Pfizer's own statements at face value? Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest here? And suddenly regulatory capture doesn't exist either? The clinical data is effectively a secret between the FDA and Pfizer, both orgs which have their own pressures to approve of the vaccine and possibly downplay adverse events. Not to mention Pfizer has been preemptively absolved of legal responsibility for any harm. People are right to be suspicious.
- doesnotexist 4y ago
  First off, I'm not taking anything at face value. My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google. As to your statements, I'm sorry but that just isn't how any of this works. Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Not to mention competition among companies and academic researchers. Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-anti-vaxxers-stop-talking-about-facts/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
  - gsibble 4y ago
    Did you watch the documentary about the Sacklers and Oxycontin? It lays pretty bare how the FDA is completely captured and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't some fully independent organization with just the interests of US citizens in mind.
  - Izkata 4y ago
    Or you're just not aware of all the facts: They did try slowly leaking out the 300000 page document supposedly used for approval over 50-75 years in response to a FOIA request, but it was shut down by a judge who ordered it be done in about 6 months instead. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97544 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9754...
  - j3th9n 4y ago
  - twofornone 4y ago
    >Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Do you know what regulatory capture is and why I specifically brought it up? The FDA is staffed with former pfizer employees. Their chairman is a former Pfizer CEO. The relationship is incestuous and and further perverts incentives. This is not unique to the FDA, it is common in regulatory agencies, which is why the phenomenon has a name. >And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google I don't think you understand that the data is coming almost exclusively from the companies that benefit from positive data and agencies with political pressure to release positive data. You do not understand the strong perverse incentives that are aligned in favor of positive vaccine sentiment and you are not sufficiently skeptical. And when publishing anything critical of vaccine safety or efficacy is risky, there effectively are no competitive researchers. No one wants to risk being labeled as an "antivaxxer". The whole stack is strongly biased in favor of the vaccines because of unchecked financial and political pressure. >My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. The only data that is available is high level summary/aggregations, published by the same orgs that stand to benefit from favorable results. The underlying raw data is not available. And your link is part of the problem. If you want to convince people to take the mRNA vaccines, you could start by not conflating hesitancy about this new technology with general vaccine hesitancy, that's just dishonest.
Izkata 4y ago
> How do you think that occured? One possibility: "We will be lynched if we even imply they're unsafe after pushing them on so many people."
- gsibble 4y ago
  Seriously.

twofornone 4y ago

Why are you so eager to take Pfizer's own statements at face value? Don't you think there's a bit of a conflict of interest here? And suddenly regulatory capture doesn't exist either? The clinical data is effectively a secret between the FDA and Pfizer, both orgs which have their own pressures to approve of the vaccine and possibly downplay adverse events. Not to mention Pfizer has been preemptively absolved of legal responsibility for any harm. People are right to be suspicious.

doesnotexist 4y ago
First off, I'm not taking anything at face value. My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google. As to your statements, I'm sorry but that just isn't how any of this works. Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Not to mention competition among companies and academic researchers. Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts. https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-anti-vaxxers-stop-talking-about-facts/ https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
- gsibble 4y ago
  Did you watch the documentary about the Sacklers and Oxycontin? It lays pretty bare how the FDA is completely captured and controlled by the pharmaceutical industry. They aren't some fully independent organization with just the interests of US citizens in mind.
- Izkata 4y ago
  Or you're just not aware of all the facts: They did try slowly leaking out the 300000 page document supposedly used for approval over 50-75 years in response to a FOIA request, but it was shut down by a judge who ordered it be done in about 6 months instead. https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/97544 https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9754...
- j3th9n 4y ago
- twofornone 4y ago
  >Why do you think we have regulatory agencies, like the FDA I mentioned. Do you know what regulatory capture is and why I specifically brought it up? The FDA is staffed with former pfizer employees. Their chairman is a former Pfizer CEO. The relationship is incestuous and and further perverts incentives. This is not unique to the FDA, it is common in regulatory agencies, which is why the phenomenon has a name. >And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google I don't think you understand that the data is coming almost exclusively from the companies that benefit from positive data and agencies with political pressure to release positive data. You do not understand the strong perverse incentives that are aligned in favor of positive vaccine sentiment and you are not sufficiently skeptical. And when publishing anything critical of vaccine safety or efficacy is risky, there effectively are no competitive researchers. No one wants to risk being labeled as an "antivaxxer". The whole stack is strongly biased in favor of the vaccines because of unchecked financial and political pressure. >My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever. The only data that is available is high level summary/aggregations, published by the same orgs that stand to benefit from favorable results. The underlying raw data is not available. And your link is part of the problem. If you want to convince people to take the mRNA vaccines, you could start by not conflating hesitancy about this new technology with general vaccine hesitancy, that's just dishonest.

Izkata 4y ago

> How do you think that occured? One possibility: "We will be lynched if we even imply they're unsafe after pushing them on so many people."

gsibble 4y ago
Seriously.