2 ms·
It’s a valid opinion. The principle is regulatory capture and it happens when a regulatory agency isn’t competent and effective enough to remain independent in
by 1123581321 5y ago
It’s a valid opinion. The principle is regulatory capture and it happens when a regulatory agency isn’t competent and effective enough to remain independent in its acquisition and evaluation of knowledge. Likewise, the “capturing” is not malicious but happens when the pharmaceutical company persuasive over time, or, in extreme situations, when it appears to have the only solution. This can be exacerbated by inherent limitations to the industry in question, e.g. the difficulty of conducting long-term medical trials in an emergency. Regulatory capture is a natural drift and so believing it has occurred does not require believing in a conspiracy.
(I haven’t studied whether it’s happened in the case of Pfizer boosters.)
- corin_ 5y agoIn the case of covid vaccines there's plenty of real world data and lots of governments, universities, etc. running different studies all the time. Pfizer would be stupid to fake some initial data because it would be very quickly found out once real world results didn't stack up. For example, this thread you're commenting in is about research from a prestigious London university which found 3 jabs provides better protection than 2. It wouldn't shock me at all to find out examples of pharma companies including Pfizer acting that way, but in this particular case of Covid vaccines there is evidence and plenty of reason to believe that it's not the case and you don't have any counter evidence, so no it's not a reasonable opinion it's just a conspiracy theory.
- 1123581321 5y agoFor sure. I don't think regulatory capture would be about faking data, rather, interpretation to the end of best improving public health (in this case) at the appropriate cost. Again, theoretically.