3 ms·
> The questions are all whether this one company had poor practices. If the FDA did not follow up on the whistleblower report it raises far broader questions a
by DrHilarius 5y ago
> The questions are all whether this one company had poor practices.
If the FDA did not follow up on the whistleblower report it raises far broader questions about oversight of the trials as a whole.
- sjtindell 5y agoThere are so many foaming at the mouth morons desperate to “prove” that the whole thing was a sham that it will take extraordinary evidence to convince me anything improper was done.
- NoPie 5y agoThe solution is not to discredit BMJ but to explain how BMJ article doesn't mean what antivax is insinuating. I totally understand that when BMJ writes that this clinical research organization did a mess is this trial, someone misreads it as all Pfizer vaccine results are false. But if you say that BMJ is hoax, then we have much stronger reason to distrust healthcare professionals. Do you see the paradox here? BMJ is expressing concern about Pfizer and regulator's failures with the ultimate aim to fix them and increase the trust by showing that every fault is taken seriously. We cannot sweep unwanted things under the carpet and hope that nothing will happen. Bad actors should be appropriately punished.
- mitigating 5y agoI want to second this. Because of how badly the right wants the vaccine to be dangerous/fake/whatever I'm so sensitive to anything negative that I basically brush off articles like this. In my mind I just lump it in with people saying the vaccine will make you impotent. Probably the wrong way to think about things but that's how my mind works.