> he thinks these whistleblowers and the BMJ are liars https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
Now we know not to trust lern_too_spel :)
follow up source: https://www.doj.state.or.us/media-home/news-media-releases/o...
Quote: "Today’s settlement follows a two-year investigation by the Oregon Department of Justice into evidence that suggested Pfizer was using unreliable and unsubstantiated claims to promote Zyvox®, a relatively new and expensive antibiotic used for treating certain types of pneumonia and bacterial skin infections. Despite lacking evidence required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to make such claims, Pfizer allegedly relied upon flawed clinical studies to substantiate assertions that Zyvox® was a superior to vancomycin, a comparatively inexpensive generic drug that holds the largest market share and has been available for more than 40 years. Pfizer’s sales representatives detailed and distributed thousands of copies of these faulty studies throughout Oregon to promote the sale of Zyvox®."
Very long and pleasant way of saying "they lied".
Not enough?
How about Chantix: 1. https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news... 2. https://www.youhavealawyer.com/chantix/
Totaling almost 300 million in settlement payouts, they opted to do this AS A SETTLEMENT rather than let things drag out in court. Hmm... I wonder why. Couldn't be because they lied, hide, or downplayed information about Chantix's impact on people's mental health. This lands in their top 10 in terms of pay outs :)
And again, I will direct you to: https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
While they haven't been fined for it yet (because their new contracts make it almost impossible :^) ), we have pretty substantial evidence Pfizer lied about a myriad of data points collected at at least one facility in regards to their covid19 injection trials.
But hey, at the end of the day I don't care what you believe beyond this post. You can defend the ultra corrupt big pharma company that bakes hundreds of millions in fines into its yearly operating budget.
Makes no difference to me, I'm healthy :)
No, that's a very long way of saying that they haven't received FDA approval to make that claim. Nothing in there substantiates your claim that Pfizer falsified data in https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-deta....
> Couldn't be because they lied, hide, or downplayed information about Chantix's impact on people's mental health.
There are no allegations that they falsified data in this suit either.
That's three strikes — you're out! Would you like to step up to bat again to try to substantiate your claim that Pfizer has been fined for data falsification?
the 2 are equivalent given context, no?
If you're referring to the CDC changing its layperson definition on https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/imz-basics.htm, its old definition was wrong and didn't include flu vaccines, among many others.
[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=definition+of+recession&sour...
It looks like NBER's definition of how they declare recessions has remained consistent, so I'd defer to them:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210103093754/https://www.nber....
Not really drugs per se, but at 50k feet yes that's true (but no entirely accurate).
However, the mRNA technology is new, different from traditional vaccines, and effectively untested. Untested until Covid.
This isn't a judgement or a knock. Just a fact.
It wasn't enough testing, and a large scale test wasn't economically viable. But they also weren't completely untested. (And guess what the world spent 6 months doing at some high death rate times? Yep, large scale testing them.)
The rub for many was / is the quickness of the process in contrast with the cock-sureness of the narrative (i.e., don't worry about it...just trust us...). There was also the disconnect between "trust the science" vs limited data and the shutting down of any question. Real Science is fearless.
The data wasn't limited in any way.
It's funny, because I have the opposite criticism. We just let people die for 6 months because we refused to act on "we are sure it's safe, we are confident it will work" and waited to have complete certainty on both of those. If we just scaled the tests further and start paying the labs before we were completely sure the vaccines work (we just really, really expected them to). We could have tested them in less than a month, and vaccinated most of the more vulnerable people in less time than that.
But if we did that, we would be open to the possibility of one of the vaccines not working. We would need a lot of transparency to deal with that, and it looks like the population can't deal with quantified certainty in any way, just with the binary version of it.
Really? Because that's not what I said.
You can't change a process - especially not a medical one for 100s of millions of people - and then say "We're 100% certain of this. This is all new. There are no long term side effects. And if you think or say otherwise, we will cancel you."
Anyone who knows even a bit of history - medical or otherwise - and is comfortable with that is a either naive, or on the take.
To clarify, I don't have a problem with an non-traditional process. That being said, the way the process was "sold" set off my BS detector too many times. The two are disconnected to a fault.
For example, there's this:
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2022/07/13/1111137...
Long to short, we've had "OMG the variants..." repeated over and over, how important the jab is to that, and then how in a worldwide pandemic the threat of variants can come from anywhere.
Yet, 2 docs in Brazil have to invent their own vax? And promise to give it away? While USA Big Pharma...does what??? counts their money? Because variants aren't a threat? See?
Again, complete disconnect. Disconnect that no one should be comfortable with.
The testing process? Of course we can, statistics is quite an established and predictive science.
Again, looks like you have a problem with a non-traditional process. You also seem to have a falling for low-quality science journalism. Both are understandable, but your failure of understanding the vaccine policies around the pandemics were due to your partial understanding, and not fault of the policies.
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/ https://www.statnews.com/2017/06/28/moderna-writedown/
The only thing you were sure of is that you were terrified, and wanted anything and anyone to save you.
But hey I'm sure all those auto-immune diseases cropping up from the vaccines fall into the category of "sureness" :D