6 ms·

There is currently a government mandate requiring most adults be vaccinated while at the same time, the government (another agency) is unwilling to publish the

There is currently a government mandate requiring most adults be vaccinated while at the same time, the government (another agency) is unwilling to publish the evidence it considered in favor of the emergency authorization and the concomitant decision making process until after everyone mandated to take it has died... because that's the way they have always done things?

lalaland1125 5y ago
The FDA already released the evidence it considered for the approval. It's available right on the FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download The plaintiffs in this case are asking for the clinical medical history of everyone in the clinical trials, which is a bit trickier to provide.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  If the evidence references other evidence and you don't have access to that other evidence then you do not have evidence at all.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    That's going to be the case for any paper evidence like this, included the 450,000 pages of personal medical information that the plaintiffs want. Unless you inspect the patient yourself, you are always going to be relying on someone else's word.
    - rajin444 5y ago
      Do you ever check the underlying data when you write a database query? Same logic applies here. There’s limits to what you can do but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
  - mike00632 5y ago
    So say you get doctor's notes saying that vaccinated patient didn't get COVID-19. What then? Do you need to interview the doctors? Where does the conspiracy theory end for you?
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      This is about data used in the vaccine approval. If you think vaccines don't need data to approve them then that throws science out the window and if that is the case then turns whatever theory into an actual conspiracy. Also, do you ever comment on anything technical or is it just pro vaccines and corporate interests?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tagoregrtst 5y ago
  The government released a summary whilst getting sued over the issue

lalaland1125 5y ago

The FDA already released the evidence it considered for the approval. It's available right on the FDA website: https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download https://www.fda.gov/media/151733/download The plaintiffs in this case are asking for the clinical medical history of everyone in the clinical trials, which is a bit trickier to provide.

encryptluks2 5y ago
If the evidence references other evidence and you don't have access to that other evidence then you do not have evidence at all.
- lalaland1125 5y ago
  That's going to be the case for any paper evidence like this, included the 450,000 pages of personal medical information that the plaintiffs want. Unless you inspect the patient yourself, you are always going to be relying on someone else's word.
  - rajin444 5y ago
    Do you ever check the underlying data when you write a database query? Same logic applies here. There’s limits to what you can do but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.
- mike00632 5y ago
  So say you get doctor's notes saying that vaccinated patient didn't get COVID-19. What then? Do you need to interview the doctors? Where does the conspiracy theory end for you?
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    This is about data used in the vaccine approval. If you think vaccines don't need data to approve them then that throws science out the window and if that is the case then turns whatever theory into an actual conspiracy. Also, do you ever comment on anything technical or is it just pro vaccines and corporate interests?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tagoregrtst 5y ago
The government released a summary whilst getting sued over the issue