Should anti-vaxx parents be charged with child neglect? (Personal story)
- Thread starter BrianNole777
- Start date
No matter how many times you attempt to move the goalposts you’re always wrong.
There are many more publications on vaccines that are NOT funded by "Big Pharma".
A mind boggling thing I’ve noticed the Rs do constantly is see something on the internet and just believe it. They run with it like it is fact. Amazing. They seem so gullible.
FUNFACT: Clinical Trials (including vaccine trials) are conducted by independent entities which are NOT connected to the companies sponsoring those trials.
It's why so many bought "referrals" for ivermectin prescriptions for $150-200 a piece from America's Frontline Doctors, who laughed all the way to the bank with their money.
I agree, It is mind boggling for people to blindly follow one perspective and not seek out unbiased opinions. To feel the other 50% is always wrong.
Or to think only one party is crooked. To not see that both parties do and say what it takes to be elected not what is best for the country.
But that’s just one person’s opinion.
Refuted.
Feel free to go back and re-read my posts dismissing your Pharma talking points as many times you need to until it sinks in.
Trials*
*Faux science (with preordained conclusions) paid for by pharmaceutical companies.
He spends all his time on a shitty message board, of course he’s a shitty parent.
Yes.
Do you know who conducted Pfizer's clinical trials on the Covid vaccines?
They did.
Which is why they were allowed to claim a 95% efficacy when the actual risk reduction was <1%.
The FDA is their b!tch.
Pfizer was responsible for the design and conduct of the trial, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the manuscript. BioNTech was the sponsor of the trial, manufactured the BNT162b2 clinical trial material, and contributed to the interpretation of the data and the writing of the manuscript. (NEJM)
🤡
🤡
"Responsible for" does not mean they did the actual work, Cletus.
In fact, it is illegal for Pfizer representatives to formally conduct the study and control the data.
So, try again. "Responsible for" simply means they had to pay the money and are legally liable for any misrepresentations, etc.
Round and round we go. 🤡
(the studies) are run by CROs working for pharmaceutical companies, and analyzed by company statisticians and others. Manuscripts are most likely drafted by ghostwriters on structures created by publication planners, and then shepherded through to publication by those planners, with limited opportunities for their academic and other independent authors to contribute (Fugh-Berman and Dodgson, 2008; Sismondo 2009; Matheson 2016). The published articles, then, are largely creations of the (pharmaceutical) companies, even if the nominal authors include independent researchers. All of this constitutes the “ghost-management” of medical research (Sismondo 2018).
(the studies) are run by CROs working for pharmaceutical companies, and analyzed by company statisticians and others. Manuscripts are most likely drafted by ghostwriters on structures created by publication planners, and then shepherded through to publication by those planners, with limited opportunities for their academic and other independent authors to contribute (Fugh-Berman and Dodgson, 2008; Sismondo 2009; Matheson 2016). The published articles, then, are largely creations of the (pharmaceutical) companies, even if the nominal authors include independent researchers. All of this constitutes the “ghost-management” of medical research (Sismondo 2018).
Do you know what a CRO even is?
I've done site-monitoring for pre-clinical studies, as I have a colleague who does these things for a living. I know exactly what the laws/rules are.
Any idea which CRO Pfizer used for their Covid trials? I do.
CROs do not "work for" pharmaceutical companies; they are contracted to perform trials (and most often participate in the trial design, because they have to follow quality system guidelines for documentation, patient confidentiality, required disclosures, etc).
Which is why Pfizer is "responsible for" the trials - Pfizer cannot engage in misconduct and "fool" a CRO into doing something improper or illegal, and then "blame the CRO" for problems - Pfizer is legally responsible and liable for the conduct of the CROs they use, and they also have to properly vet any CRO's own quality systems to ensure they conform to regulations and laws.
You truly have no clue what you are talking about here. This is one of the areas I've actually worked in.
Stay in your lane, bro.
Ironic that you completely omit this point. Because independent researchers and NIH are able to access Pfizer's raw data and review it, independently. Because the CRO is who controls that raw data, not Pfizer employees.
Your source there also throws in some unsubstantiated innuendo claiming "most likely" w/o anything to support it.
Can you say ‘prostitution’, boys and girls?
A look at the research contracts between corporations (mostly Big Pharma companies) and academic medical centers shows that 80% allowed the commercial funder to own, and thus control, the data from jointly conducted research. Furthermore, fully half of the research contracts between drug companies and academic institutions—the partnerships with the highest likelihood of upholding rigorous research standards—allowed industry insiders to ghostwrite clinical trial reports for publication in scientific journals, relegating the named authors to the position of “suggesting” revisions.
Nonetheless thorough peer review ensures that these reports are accurate, right? Wrong. Unbeknownst to almost all doctors, peer reviewers are not granted access to the underlying data that serves as the basis for the reported findings. The drug companies own that data and keep it confidential as “corporate property.” Reviewers must rely on brief data summaries included in the submitted manuscripts. Peer reviewers at even the most prestigious medical journals cannot possibly attest to the accuracy and completeness of the articles they review.
This sham was exposed in 2005 when the editors of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine admitted they had not seen relevant data from a clinical trial involving Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx. Five years earlier, the article had extolled the drug’s safety even though neither the editors nor the peer reviewers had been granted access to underlying data, which showed three heart attacks that had occurred in patients treated with Vioxx were not reported. Had this data had been properly disclosed and analyzed when the manuscript was first submitted, the article would have shown that Vioxx significantly increased the risk of heart attack five-fold when compared to over-the-counter naproxen (Aleve). And many of the estimated 30,000 Americans who died as a result of taking Vioxx after the incomplete article was published would not have been exposed to the drug.(Time.com)
A look at the research contracts between corporations (mostly Big Pharma companies) and academic medical centers shows that 80% allowed the commercial funder to own, and thus control, the data from jointly conducted research. Furthermore, fully half of the research contracts between drug companies and academic institutions—the partnerships with the highest likelihood of upholding rigorous research standards—allowed industry insiders to ghostwrite clinical trial reports for publication in scientific journals, relegating the named authors to the position of “suggesting” revisions.
Nonetheless thorough peer review ensures that these reports are accurate, right? Wrong. Unbeknownst to almost all doctors, peer reviewers are not granted access to the underlying data that serves as the basis for the reported findings. The drug companies own that data and keep it confidential as “corporate property.” Reviewers must rely on brief data summaries included in the submitted manuscripts. Peer reviewers at even the most prestigious medical journals cannot possibly attest to the accuracy and completeness of the articles they review.
This sham was exposed in 2005 when the editors of an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine admitted they had not seen relevant data from a clinical trial involving Merck’s arthritis drug Vioxx. Five years earlier, the article had extolled the drug’s safety even though neither the editors nor the peer reviewers had been granted access to underlying data, which showed three heart attacks that had occurred in patients treated with Vioxx were not reported. Had this data had been properly disclosed and analyzed when the manuscript was first submitted, the article would have shown that Vioxx significantly increased the risk of heart attack five-fold when compared to over-the-counter naproxen (Aleve). And many of the estimated 30,000 Americans who died as a result of taking Vioxx after the incomplete article was published would not have been exposed to the drug.(Time.com)
Never claimed they do not "own" the data.
In a clinical trial, they do not "control" the data used for analysis. Particularly for the vaccines case we are referring to. That data was controlled by the CRO and provided to NIH/reviewers w/o Pfizer being able to "adjust" or "censor" any of it.
You are well out of your element here, Googling random snippets on a topic you clearly have no expertise in. I know what CROs do; I've worked with one.
To this day, Big Pharma companies remain unwilling to disclose their underlying clinical trial data. The most recent example involved Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine. In September 2021, one month after the vaccine had been granted full approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a group of medical researchers and scientists sued the agency for the release of 451,000 pages of scientific documents it had evaluated prior to granting the vaccine full approval. Even though the agency required only 108 days to sufficiently evaluate these documents before granting the vaccine formal approval, the FDA (with Pfizer wanting to join the lawsuit), argued that the fastest they could release the data was five hundred pages per month, meaning that it would take seventy-five years before the documents were released in full. On January 6, 2022, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruled that the FDA must release 55,000 (not 500) pages of the documents each month until complete.
PUBLICLY disclose.
The CRO has seen that data, as have the independent reviewers, Cletus.
‘Epistemic’ corruption; couldn’t have said it any better.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The medical research described here (ghost management) forms a new kind of corporate science, designed to look like traditional academic work, but performed largely to market products.
In the ghost management of medical research by pharmaceutical companies, we have a novel model of science. This is corporate science, done by many hidden workers, performed for marketing purposes, and drawing its authority from traditional academic science. The high commercial stakes mean that all of the parties connected with this new science can find reasons or be induced* to participate, support, and steadily normalize it.
*Induced? Induced by what?!?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science
When a knowledge system importantly loses integrity, ceasing to provide the kinds of trusted knowledge expected of it, we can label this epistemic corruption. Epistemic corruption often occurs because the system has been co-opted for interests at odds ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The medical research described here (ghost management) forms a new kind of corporate science, designed to look like traditional academic work, but performed largely to market products.
In the ghost management of medical research by pharmaceutical companies, we have a novel model of science. This is corporate science, done by many hidden workers, performed for marketing purposes, and drawing its authority from traditional academic science. The high commercial stakes mean that all of the parties connected with this new science can find reasons or be induced* to participate, support, and steadily normalize it.
*Induced? Induced by what?!?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
This has nothing to do with vaccines, or with CROs (a term you apparently just learned, today).‘Epistemic’ corruption; couldn’t have said it any better.
Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science
When a knowledge system importantly loses integrity, ceasing to provide the kinds of trusted knowledge expected of it, we can label this epistemic corruption. Epistemic corruption often occurs because the system has been co-opted for interests at odds ...
The medical research described here (ghost management) forms a new kind of corporate science, designed to look like traditional academic work, but performed largely to market products.
In the ghost management of medical research by pharmaceutical companies, we have a novel model of science. This is corporate science, done by many hidden workers, performed for marketing purposes, and drawing its authority from traditional academic science. The high commercial stakes mean that all of the parties connected with this new science can find reasons or be induced* to participate, support, and steadily normalize it.
*Induced? Induced by what?!?
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Systemic corruption in the pharmaceutical and regulatory system has EVERYTHING to do with vaccines.
And it’s interesting that a blowhard like you, who has humbly bragged about having a PhD, as well as authoring and co-authoring scientific studies/articles in the industry and working extensively with doctors and researchers has never once mentioned CRO’s…until I brought it up.
🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡 🤡
And generalizing a few examples to the entire industry is something you can do with damn near ANY industry or organization.
Has nothing to do with the vaccines we are talking about. It's primarily a problem with the expensive, designer drugs they make far higher returns on.
Please, please, PLEAASSSE make this next one super, duper scary. And make it so we need 4 shots to rev our immune systems up. And monthly boosters to keep us healthy. In Pfizer’s name we pray. Amen!
🙏 🙏 🙏
We've been recommending annual flu vaccine boosts for the past several decades. Despite that pandemic occurring over 100 years ago.
We'll be recommending annual Covid vaccine boosts every year or two, as well. Particularly if the 40% reduction in Long Covid incidence is maintained, to protect kids from those outcomes.
But of course!
I mean, what kind of decent, well adjusted human doesn’t hope and pray for a horrific plague to wipe out everyone on earth who doesn’t agree with him/her?
Totally not psychotic.
