Weeks (at best) instead of many years of Phase 3 data, technologies scarcely ever even trialed in humans (I speak of the mRNA jabs, I admit I don't know if applies to these), much less provisionally approved for a wide market, shoddy studies, unknown (and unknowable) side effects, particularly long-term. What could possibly go wrong? š²
Weeks (at best) instead of many years of Phase 3 data, technologies scarcely ever even trialed in humans (I speak of the mRNA jabs, I admit I don't know if applies to these), much less provisionally approved for a wide market, shoddy studies, unknown (and unknowable) side effects, particularly long-term. What could possibly go wrong? š²
Not to mention all the politics and other conflicts of interest. Let's see, just off the top of my head: EUA approval requires there be no existing approved treatment. Translation: suppress any existing treatment that might compete. EUA approval gives Pharma a de-facto monopoly on the market for the drug as well as total (that's 100% boys and girls) immunity to liability; in fact the indemnity is from manufacturer all the way down to the guy that changes your bedpan. Pretty good deal from their point of view. One can only speculate on just how much Pharma stock all these regulators and other government staff hold in their brokerage or retirement accounts.
I can't imagine how you could possibly make the system any more corrupt and prone to being gamed than it already is.
I'm starting to understand why -- even years ago -- some people recommended only using Rx drugs that were generic and/or had been on the market for many years. Clearly, the first gives lower costs, the second gives a track record of safety or known side effects. I do believe I will adopt that as a policy going forward.
Weeks (at best) instead of many years of Phase 3 data, technologies scarcely ever even trialed in humans (I speak of the mRNA jabs, I admit I don't know if applies to these), much less provisionally approved for a wide market, shoddy studies, unknown (and unknowable) side effects, particularly long-term. What could possibly go wrong? š²
Not to mention all the politics and other conflicts of interest. Let's see, just off the top of my head: EUA approval requires there be no existing approved treatment. Translation: suppress any existing treatment that might compete. EUA approval gives Pharma a de-facto monopoly on the market for the drug as well as total (that's 100% boys and girls) immunity to liability; in fact the indemnity is from manufacturer all the way down to the guy that changes your bedpan. Pretty good deal from their point of view. One can only speculate on just how much Pharma stock all these regulators and other government staff hold in their brokerage or retirement accounts.
I can't imagine how you could possibly make the system any more corrupt and prone to being gamed than it already is.
I'm starting to understand why -- even years ago -- some people recommended only using Rx drugs that were generic and/or had been on the market for many years. Clearly, the first gives lower costs, the second gives a track record of safety or known side effects. I do believe I will adopt that as a policy going forward.
All paid for by US. I want my dividend checks!