7 ms·

what's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit o

by ccn0p 4y ago

what's crazy to me is how terrible of a track record big pharma has in being even moderately uncorrupted, and yet when it comes to vaccines, sprinkle in a bit of fear and suddenly we're supposed to trust their studies and superbowl commercials.

pdntspa 4y ago
I would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now
- TMWNN 4y ago
  ranitidine was a very, very, very widely used drug. Yet it took 40 years!
  - refurb 4y ago
    This! Look at the COX-2 inhibitors as well. They were on the market for almost a decade before the increased risk of heart attack popped up in the data.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    Exactly. If you on principle refuse to take any medication or vaccine due to the fact that they almost all have rare, unstudied or potential side effects then that's totally fair. The human body is a very complex thing and every single one of us is different so it's basically impossible to truly know if a drug will have no rare side effects for some sub group. Or at least do extensive deep research on every single medication you take including supplements and over the counter things. If you only do this for the covid vaccine due to reading too much fearmongering then that just means you're irrational.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      How is this relevant to the parent comment? Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed.
      - TMWNN 4y ago
        >Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed. Even worse, I have taken ranitidine that I had in storage (not in heat) for more than a year! So this news is all the more alarming.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  > I would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now A large sample size means less if the problems are longer-term in nature such as an increase in cancer rates down the road or problems with fertility, which might take more time to fully detect and understand. And a large sample size means little without a control group: yet if some people had their way, there'd be no control group left.
- RobotToaster 4y ago
  That doesn't account for long term side effects, that may only be seen years, or decades, later. Of course, catching covid may also have unknown long term side effects, like how some who caught Spanish flu went on to develop encephalitis lethargica. Vaccinated or not you're part of what is effectively the largest post marketing clinical study, either as the treatment or control group. Science is fun like that.
jjeaff 4y ago
Except we aren't just trusting the pharma companies. In the case of COVID vaccines, it is one of the most broadly studied things on the planet at this point. If we had this much money and this many eyes on studying and testing Zantac, I have no doubt they wouldn't have been able to keep the cancer risks secret.
- hammock 4y ago
  What risks have all those studies found in COVID vaccines?
  - throwaway29812 4y ago
    Extremely low instances of complications. The same complications exist in far higher rates with COVID itself.
    - hammock 4y ago
      What complications? >The same complications exist in far higher rates with COVID itself. Is that relevant if most people who get the jab also later get covid?
      - marcinzm 4y ago
        >Is that relevant if most people who get the jab also later get covid? You do realize that the whole point of a vaccine is to either prevent or improve the symptoms of a disease right? So if you're nearly guaranteed to get covid then you definitely want to suffer a smaller number of complications from a vaccine and then reduced post-vaccine covid complications versus the much worse complications of un-vaccinated covid. The math is different if you're unlikely to catch covid but as you admit yourself that isn't the case nowadays.
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    The big ones where Johnson & Johnson/Janssen had a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome to the point of being effectivelly discontinued. Pfizer and Moderna also have a risk of myocarditis. There's also plenty of other studies covering the various other risks such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/. Which can all be found after 30 seconds of Googling or simply by paying attention to all the news these got over the last few years.
themitigating 4y ago
Since the vast majority of medicine produced isn't like this situation how do they have bad track record. Also each company is independent.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  They have a bad track record. Look at the controversy section of their wiki, and this is just for GSK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSK_plc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSK_plc
  - themitigating 4y ago
    And? If 95% of the medicine released didn't turn out to be a mistake or the company lied why wouldn't you trust the company. All you're doing is saying that bad things happened instead of comparing it to the number of non bad things.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      The one hell of an argument. The upside of it is that nearly every terrible thing seems a lot less bad.

by ccn0p 4y ago

pdntspa 4y ago

I would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now

TMWNN 4y ago
ranitidine was a very, very, very widely used drug. Yet it took 40 years!
- refurb 4y ago
  This! Look at the COX-2 inhibitors as well. They were on the market for almost a decade before the increased risk of heart attack popped up in the data.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  Exactly. If you on principle refuse to take any medication or vaccine due to the fact that they almost all have rare, unstudied or potential side effects then that's totally fair. The human body is a very complex thing and every single one of us is different so it's basically impossible to truly know if a drug will have no rare side effects for some sub group. Or at least do extensive deep research on every single medication you take including supplements and over the counter things. If you only do this for the covid vaccine due to reading too much fearmongering then that just means you're irrational.
  - MichaelZuo 4y ago
    How is this relevant to the parent comment? Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed.
    - TMWNN 4y ago
      >Every pill of ranitidine would undergo this process in storage, if I understand correctly. Yet it took 40 years for it to finally be confirmed. Even worse, I have taken ranitidine that I had in storage (not in heat) for more than a year! So this news is all the more alarming.
logicalmonster 4y ago
> I would think that, with the number of people who received it, any issues would have been sussed out by now A large sample size means less if the problems are longer-term in nature such as an increase in cancer rates down the road or problems with fertility, which might take more time to fully detect and understand. And a large sample size means little without a control group: yet if some people had their way, there'd be no control group left.
RobotToaster 4y ago
That doesn't account for long term side effects, that may only be seen years, or decades, later. Of course, catching covid may also have unknown long term side effects, like how some who caught Spanish flu went on to develop encephalitis lethargica. Vaccinated or not you're part of what is effectively the largest post marketing clinical study, either as the treatment or control group. Science is fun like that.

jjeaff 4y ago

Except we aren't just trusting the pharma companies. In the case of COVID vaccines, it is one of the most broadly studied things on the planet at this point. If we had this much money and this many eyes on studying and testing Zantac, I have no doubt they wouldn't have been able to keep the cancer risks secret.

hammock 4y ago
What risks have all those studies found in COVID vaccines?
- throwaway29812 4y ago
  Extremely low instances of complications. The same complications exist in far higher rates with COVID itself.
  - hammock 4y ago
    What complications? >The same complications exist in far higher rates with COVID itself. Is that relevant if most people who get the jab also later get covid?
    - marcinzm 4y ago
      >Is that relevant if most people who get the jab also later get covid? You do realize that the whole point of a vaccine is to either prevent or improve the symptoms of a disease right? So if you're nearly guaranteed to get covid then you definitely want to suffer a smaller number of complications from a vaccine and then reduced post-vaccine covid complications versus the much worse complications of un-vaccinated covid. The math is different if you're unlikely to catch covid but as you admit yourself that isn't the case nowadays.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  The big ones where Johnson & Johnson/Janssen had a risk of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome to the point of being effectivelly discontinued. Pfizer and Moderna also have a risk of myocarditis. There's also plenty of other studies covering the various other risks such as https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36055877/. Which can all be found after 30 seconds of Googling or simply by paying attention to all the news these got over the last few years.

themitigating 4y ago

Since the vast majority of medicine produced isn't like this situation how do they have bad track record. Also each company is independent.

lostlogin 4y ago
They have a bad track record. Look at the controversy section of their wiki, and this is just for GSK. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSK_plc https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSK_plc
- themitigating 4y ago
  And? If 95% of the medicine released didn't turn out to be a mistake or the company lied why wouldn't you trust the company. All you're doing is saying that bad things happened instead of comparing it to the number of non bad things.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    The one hell of an argument. The upside of it is that nearly every terrible thing seems a lot less bad.