4 ms·

Can someone point me to one of the 90 incidents that is "Gave false study data." I went through 10 of them and they are all "Advertising where they shouldn't b

Can someone point me to one of the 90 incidents that is "Gave false study data." I went through 10 of them and they are all "Advertising where they shouldn't be" or "incorrectly stating costs." Comments in here are like a conservative sess pool and it is 3 comments in. It is like no one read any of the data. Who would have thought?

rand0mx1 4y ago
There are many users on HN with anti-science bias, data means nothing to them
- coldtea 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - stonogo 4y ago
    I run in some fairly lefty circles and I can safely state I've never heard of anyone (of ANY political leaning) "root for Pfizer" edit: except their actual paid PR people.
    - mbg721 4y ago
      And anybody who holds significant shares of their stock.
      - stonogo 4y ago
        No, the folks I know are more likely to sell stock they don't like than cheer for it against their own principles. That's assuming they buy individual stocks, which most people don't.
        mbg721 4y ago
        Those people don't hold an amount that's significant, though.
        stonogo 4y ago
        Thus we're a long way from the "most of them" I was replying to. Unless you're claiming that a majority of people hold a significant amount of Pfizer stock, I don't think we're disagreeing here?
- dang 4y ago
  "Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
40amxn40 4y ago
[flagged]
- mdorazio 4y ago
  Then it should be trivial for you to do exactly what the parent comment asked for and provide an example rather than calling it a bad faith argument.
- mulletbum 4y ago
  [flagged]
dilap 4y ago
I don't know if anything ever came of it, but a whistleblower in their covid vaccine trial alleged data issues and ignoring negative side effects: > A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson (video 1), emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 Even things like "Advertising where they shouldn't be" are not neccessarily innocuous; e.g. it can be promoting use of a drug in a situation that is known to be unsafe. In lawsuits regarding Bextra (which Pfizer ended up settling for around 1b), > the state alleged that despite the significant safety concerns that led FDA to reject a request to market high dose Bextra for acute and surgical pain, Pfizer conducted a systematic, multi-pronged “off-label” promotional campaign for these very indications.

rand0mx1 4y ago

There are many users on HN with anti-science bias, data means nothing to them

coldtea 4y ago
[flagged]
- stonogo 4y ago
  I run in some fairly lefty circles and I can safely state I've never heard of anyone (of ANY political leaning) "root for Pfizer" edit: except their actual paid PR people.
  - mbg721 4y ago
    And anybody who holds significant shares of their stock.
    - stonogo 4y ago
      No, the folks I know are more likely to sell stock they don't like than cheer for it against their own principles. That's assuming they buy individual stocks, which most people don't.
      - mbg721 4y ago
        Those people don't hold an amount that's significant, though.
        stonogo 4y ago
        Thus we're a long way from the "most of them" I was replying to. Unless you're claiming that a majority of people hold a significant amount of Pfizer stock, I don't think we're disagreeing here?
dang 4y ago
"Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community." It's reliably a marker of bad comments and worse threads. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

40amxn40 4y ago

[flagged]

mdorazio 4y ago
Then it should be trivial for you to do exactly what the parent comment asked for and provide an example rather than calling it a bad faith argument.
mulletbum 4y ago
[flagged]

dilap 4y ago

I don't know if anything ever came of it, but a whistleblower in their covid vaccine trial alleged data issues and ignoring negative side effects: > A regional director who was employed at the research organisation Ventavia Research Group has told The BMJ that the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase III trial. Staff who conducted quality control checks were overwhelmed by the volume of problems they were finding. After repeatedly notifying Ventavia of these problems, the regional director, Brook Jackson (video 1), emailed a complaint to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Ventavia fired her later the same day https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 Even things like "Advertising where they shouldn't be" are not neccessarily innocuous; e.g. it can be promoting use of a drug in a situation that is known to be unsafe. In lawsuits regarding Bextra (which Pfizer ended up settling for around 1b), > the state alleged that despite the significant safety concerns that led FDA to reject a request to market high dose Bextra for acute and surgical pain, Pfizer conducted a systematic, multi-pronged “off-label” promotional campaign for these very indications.