4 ms·

Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time.

Pharma companies get away with way too much. No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people, some of the time. But charge everyone same, with no refunds when the product doesn't work. And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. The new development to use the power of the courts and government to mandate their use should give you pause. The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1%. And that was before Omicron. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5247(21)00069-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanmic/article/PIIS2666-5...

mpyne 5y ago
> No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right? > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. We don't want politicians to turn pill pushers with kickback schemes for things that barely work. How does the saying go ... "Don't invite the devil in"
  - mpyne 5y ago
    > All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event. > It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme. Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them. I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes. I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population. And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later. I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study. So lets just say it's debatable.
      - jeromegv 5y ago
        Hospital rate of unvax vs vaccinated population is easily verifiable, as previous poster said, the vaccine works, everywhere. The data is there. And it’s not just for 80+. It’s been seen in many jurisdictions across the world. The fact that you willingly ignore this data shows that you are trying to blind yourself on purpose.
tyrfing 5y ago
Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a scam. > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.
- perryizgr8 5y ago
  When roller-coasters are mandated by governments and employers then your comparison will make sense.
- nunez 5y ago
  A single one of them _that included 22 women in the suit_
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  Vaccines have a liability shield. Your only restitution is filing a claim with the NVICP, which is like applying for social security. They'll deny you as long as they can and then give you the bare minimum once approved, but no where near the amount that was taken from you and often not enough to even survive.
- xdennis 5y ago
  You can't compare roller coasters to pharmaceuticals because enjoyment is subjective, but medicine isn't.
shadowgovt 5y ago
There's a reason the US has an FDA. What we're seeing here is with standards in place... Imagine the landscape with no standards or regulation. ... Or, hell, we don't even have to imagine, because we've been watching people actively try and dodge the regulations to treat a virus with livestock de-wormer because some influential people suggested it would work.
- dukeofdoom 5y ago
  - shadowgovt 5y ago
    There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
    - dukeofdoom 5y ago
      That's interesting that you mention side effects, because I've heard it represented as being one of the safest medicines ever made. Can you back that up with some proof...Vaers reports? CDC is US based. I have read before that it was approved for use in Japan for treatment. So there must be some disagreement between health agencies on it's effectiveness.
      - shadowgovt 5y ago
        > VAERS reports? ... Aren't proof. VAERS is data collection, not analysis. It's a giant anecdote database. There is no vetting on the input data, which is self-reported. There is a VAERS entry describing someone being turned into the Incredible Hulk after taking MMR vaccine. https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=221579&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=221... Fortunately, there are tests and analytics on the side-effects of Ivermectin that don't rely on VAERS. You can find most of them listed in the FDA front-matter for the drug, because it was approved for other uses besides COVID. The approval process includes grasping side-effects. The US decided, ages ago, that "snake-oil" (unproven drugs with side-effects) were something the government would step in and stop because people suffering and dying are desperate and easily-cheated. Other nations have different histories. (... Regarding Japan, I'd double check primary sources. https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-article-further-muddies-ivermectin-debate-wire-agency-issues-correction https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-article...)
rajin444 5y ago
> The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1% I'd imagine this value is much higher if you're old, fat, and/or have relevant comorbidities. This also means the value is much lower for nearly everyone else. Which is what makes the mandates so head scratching. There's some handwaving about reducing transmission but the real world evidence for that is pretty shaky.

mpyne 5y ago

> No other industry could you sell products that only slightly work as advertised for some people Gambling? Options trading? Do you get refunds from your weed dealer when it doesn't hit quite right? > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. You can, it's just that you get damages paid by the Federal government, not the manufacturer. You also can't sue if the military fails to defend a U.S. city from attack, for what it's worth.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. We don't want politicians to turn pill pushers with kickback schemes for things that barely work. How does the saying go ... "Don't invite the devil in"
- mpyne 5y ago
  > All the profits to them, all the risk to us. I'm sure Pharma companies are loving that arrangement. That's how it works everywhere in public policy, which is the only area where you can't directly sue Pharma companies (i.e. when the government makes a vaccine series part of the childhood vaccination series or part of a pandemic response regimen). But at that point the party directing you to take the vaccine isn't the Pharma company or companies, it's the Federal government, so they are properly the ones that should be counter-party to a suit in any event. > It's much easier to bribe a politician than make a new product that actually works when development costs hundreds of millions. You say that as if it proves your case, and yet we can see from data that is obvious even to the untrained eye that the product you're complaining about 'actually works'.
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    That depends on the definition of 'actually works' and vaccine. Both which need redefining in the new scheme. Personally I'll grant that wearing gloves helps prevent frostbite. But I wouldn't make people in Hawaii wear them. I think you have to look at the groups most at risk and it turns out its really old people with multiple morbidity either already in hospital near death or coming in from nursing homes. I just don't see how showing some statical benefit to that group translates to general healthy much younger population. And even than, I think you could show a statistical benefit to giving two doses of a laxative in fighting covid in 80+ year olds, if all you counted was the health outcomes in the stronger surviving subpopulation that survived the laxative two weeks later. I've taken enough statistics at university to know I can safely ignore anything that isn't a double blind study. So lets just say it's debatable.
    - jeromegv 5y ago
      Hospital rate of unvax vs vaccinated population is easily verifiable, as previous poster said, the vaccine works, everywhere. The data is there. And it’s not just for 80+. It’s been seen in many jurisdictions across the world. The fact that you willingly ignore this data shows that you are trying to blind yourself on purpose.

tyrfing 5y ago

Only a certain percent of people enjoy themselves on rollercoasters. Therefore, charging everyone for entry is a scam. > And you can't even sue if it causes you harm. There are 38,200 pending lawsuits against J&J solely for talc powder claims. A single one of them was $2.5 billion.

perryizgr8 5y ago
When roller-coasters are mandated by governments and employers then your comparison will make sense.
nunez 5y ago
A single one of them _that included 22 women in the suit_
encryptluks2 5y ago
Vaccines have a liability shield. Your only restitution is filing a claim with the NVICP, which is like applying for social security. They'll deny you as long as they can and then give you the bare minimum once approved, but no where near the amount that was taken from you and often not enough to even survive.
xdennis 5y ago
You can't compare roller coasters to pharmaceuticals because enjoyment is subjective, but medicine isn't.

shadowgovt 5y ago

There's a reason the US has an FDA. What we're seeing here is with standards in place... Imagine the landscape with no standards or regulation. ... Or, hell, we don't even have to imagine, because we've been watching people actively try and dodge the regulations to treat a virus with livestock de-wormer because some influential people suggested it would work.

dukeofdoom 5y ago
- shadowgovt 5y ago
  There were early studies, yes. Subsequent studies suggested no. "Having promise" isn't enough for something with side-effects like Ivermectin, which is why the FDA didn't clear it for this use. https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul...
  - dukeofdoom 5y ago
    That's interesting that you mention side effects, because I've heard it represented as being one of the safest medicines ever made. Can you back that up with some proof...Vaers reports? CDC is US based. I have read before that it was approved for use in Japan for treatment. So there must be some disagreement between health agencies on it's effectiveness.
    - shadowgovt 5y ago
      > VAERS reports? ... Aren't proof. VAERS is data collection, not analysis. It's a giant anecdote database. There is no vetting on the input data, which is self-reported. There is a VAERS entry describing someone being turned into the Incredible Hulk after taking MMR vaccine. https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=221579&WAYBACKHISTORY=ON https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?IDNUMBER=221... Fortunately, there are tests and analytics on the side-effects of Ivermectin that don't rely on VAERS. You can find most of them listed in the FDA front-matter for the drug, because it was approved for other uses besides COVID. The approval process includes grasping side-effects. The US decided, ages ago, that "snake-oil" (unproven drugs with side-effects) were something the government would step in and stop because people suffering and dying are desperate and easily-cheated. Other nations have different histories. (... Regarding Japan, I'd double check primary sources. https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-article-further-muddies-ivermectin-debate-wire-agency-issues-correction https://www.newswise.com/articles/misleading-reuters-article...)

rajin444 5y ago

> The absolute risk reduction (ARR) for the covid Vaccine is something like 1% I'd imagine this value is much higher if you're old, fat, and/or have relevant comorbidities. This also means the value is much lower for nearly everyone else. Which is what makes the mandates so head scratching. There's some handwaving about reducing transmission but the real world evidence for that is pretty shaky.