Can you cite a source for this claim please?
The CDC says it “may reduce severity”. It does not state that you won’t get the flu if vaccinated, as was erroneously stated about Covid vaccines.
Since you are adept at Google searches, it’s right at your fingertips. The underpinning scientific articles are out of my reach as I’m in my car and their interpretation may be over my head.
Update on pediatric flu deaths in the U.S and emphasis on getting the flu vaccine.
www.cdc.gov
This one’s a little depressing. Last season we hit a milestone of 200 pediatric deaths from flu in the USA. 80% of those were unvaccinated.
Regarding pharmaceutical companies, I trust them about as far as I can throw them. However, “marketing and misrepresentation” can be as benign as a drug rep answering a question from a physician about an indication they’re not allowed to discuss yet. It does not matter whether the drug actually works for that symptom. (Please read that again.) That is a line they cannot cross without risk of litigation or losing their jobs. If they could, providers might be better informed.
Kickbacks, obviously bad, can be as bland as a discount in bulk sold to a not for profit hospital. It would have limited influence on prescribers, a notoriously sassy and opinionated lot. 30 years ago if you’re a famous doc astra zeneca flies you to Paris. Nowadays it’s ink pens and sandwiches. Are things better?
In the 90s, the average cost to bring a drug to market was over $750 million and took 10 years. Imagine the cost today! If a company such as Boston scientific wants to change IV tubing, I’m told it’s a 3 to 5 year process. Point being this is the among the most highly regulated industries on earth, second perhaps only to the nuclear power industry, to the detriment of us all. That’s a key reason why things are so expensive. And more regulation won’t make it better.
Regarding profit motive, true and I wouldn’t have it any other way. Otherwise there would be no pharma, big or small. The engine needs oiling such that federal funds tend to find their way into private sector research labs, by a one-way street. Making money is the primary job of a corporation. I imagine it’s a difficult ethical path to plot when you have shareholders to satisfy, a sketch reputation, a complex relationship with the federal government, fierce competitors, a need for human trials, and thousands of highly trained employees to pay.
Should one feel differently about Apple or Google or General Motors? It’s hard to find a squeaky clean company, and you’re quoting lawsuits that are 20 years old. Many pharma employees are no doubt Christian. Are we listening to whistleblowers today, even if they don’t fit our political preferences?
I should comment on more recent litigation over OxyContin. Every executive, chemist, patient, prescriber, and pharmacist knew absolutely beyond a shadow of doubt the medication was addictive. It was hoped to be *less* addictive. Broadening from addiction and vaccines to general side effects, an old professor sayeth “any drug can cause any problem at any time”. Pharma must report what they know, and when they knew it. If they don’t, they’re in the doghouse as above. If they do, they can still take a silly big hit from a civil lawsuit. For example silicone breast implants. Not statistically associated with any medical problem, but still good for $500 million or so.
If you’re able to look beyond Google and talk to industry people, even uglier stuff happens. Phase one trials for chemotherapy drugs are strictly for toxicity testing. No intent to benefit the patient whatsoever. Yet hopeful people sign up. The stated of chance of benefit is about 3% if I recall correctly. Phase 2 trials are in a way worse, when people who have terrible side effects are encouraged to stay enrolled in the trial just so the work can be statistically powered. They also do not benefit. I apologize if you already know this information, and certainly your perspective and interpretation may be different than mine. I’d still take the chemo, if i thought it could help me.
Your implication is that a reputable pharmaceutical company that puts humans before profit could make an anti-Covid product and you would strongly consider taking it. True or false?
Imho Fauci is a dirtbag. I enjoyed seeing him perjure himself, but it looks like he will get away with it. As will our state enemy across the Pacific. Fauci is a poster child for the incestuous relationship between big Pharma and big government.
He admitted to taking the jab and admitted to getting mild Covid. Therefore, he passes my litmus test. I sure didn’t envy his job: he had a bullhorn to millions of emotionally wound, scientifically illiterate people. He had to both predict the future and dumb down the present. All while many were dwelling on the past. I don’t know who could have excelled in that role.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
www.facebook.com
www.medicalnewstoday.com
academic.oup.com
www.cidrap.umn.edu
