3 ms·
Another way to interpret this is that when unrestrained, Pfizer cut some corners and insufficiently represented the test population. Of course, this all depend
by lifeformed 6y ago
Another way to interpret this is that when unrestrained, Pfizer cut some corners and insufficiently represented the test population. Of course, this all depends on the reasoning behind that request.
- eloff 6y agoThat's a completely unsubstantiated allegation.
- throwaway2245 6y ago"Executives said they didn’t want to give agencies outside the FDA more leverage over the design of the trials" substantiates it, given that this was the leverage sought.
- eloff 6y agoNo it does not. Your assuming that was the leverage sought. You're also assuming that's the primary reason for avoiding government interference when there are many reasons for that. The primary possibly being that bringing the government into it would slow things down. Finally you're assuming that they didn't have a diverse trial, and you're wrong about that: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25408528 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25408528
- lifeformed 6y agoIt's not meant to be an allegation; my point is that the government asking to increase test diversity isn't inherently a negative. However, the parent comment interpreted that it was, because it was stated earlier that it "slowed things down", without showing that such a request was frivolous.
- NicoJuicy 6y agoThe FDA still has to approve and cutting corners will end up being when searching for approval