If you don't believe every developed countries’ medical bodies on vaccines, where do you get your info on this? (As to the ‘pro-vax’ question, I'd define it as someone who is open to listening the medical bodies of every developed country on the planet.)

So what is the logic here?

If the only entity that you can get information from is an entity that is known to lie, you can trust this entity?

It is not that we know for a fact that X is not safe. It is that we have no reason to believe that the powers that can ensure that, does not have an incentive to do it, and a large financial incentive to NOT do it and instead grease a lot of palms and get it mandated.

This is particularly relevant when the cost to grease the palms is minuscule compared to the profit that can be made by the approval.

And it is particularly relavant when the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.

We are sitting ducks here. But people apparently does not notice.

That’s what this article here is about. Yes, FDA is known to make questionable actions, as are other agencies around safety or efficacy of drugs. But here the statistics continue to show they are right about vaccines.

I think your own logic supports the opposite from your conclusions?

I'm saying that every developed country's medical bodies support that these vaccines are safe.

Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines? That they will be too cautious because they are afraid of approving something that turns out to be unsafe, or the opposite that they have no fear of approving something unsafe?

Are there any examples you'd point to of where developed countries' medical bodies approved something unsafe because they were bribed, as you imply is the norm today?

But most importantly, if you think every developed country's medical bodies should not be used as the source of info about safety vs benefits, what should be? Or what should be the system even if it doesn't exist today?

> is an entity that is known to lie

What are you referring to?

> the common man cannot any relavant information about it from any other source.

The common man is inundated with info about vaccines from other sources, although much of it is misinformation, etc.

>Are you claiming that every developed country's medical bodies do not have an incentive to make the right decisions around vaccines?

It is a question of how aligned the individual's incentives and the incentives of the medical body in question. And often it is extremely misaligned. So that is what is I mean when I said there is "no incentive".

So what do I mean by that?

When such an organization recommend X, it just mean that if everyone follows that recommendation, the population wide metric, that can be immediately measured or that is often measured will show good beneficial result.

So here if people follow the recommendation two things can happen

1. The number of covid deaths will drop. This is something that will show up immediately, because everyone was focused on daily death toll.

2. A substantial number of people will have adverse effects. This is something that can be managed (in terms of public opinion)

So the incentive of the organization end up being favorable to the recommendation despite the very good chance of point 2 happening. With financial incentives, this is just more pronounced...

> What are you referring to?

Any group of human beings.

I'm still unsure if you think there is any other even theoretical approach than trusting developed countries' medical bodies that would have better outcomes, or if you believe the approach I mentioned is the absolute optimal possible one.

Regardless, as far as the statistics about things like how vaccines changed covid deaths, and any change in non-covid deaths, a study of tens of millions of people found a very large drop in covid deaths among the vaccinated... and actually no increase in other cause morbidity either (different study than the OP study). https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

In that study are you aware if they looked at the vaccination status of the expired members in the unvaccinated group during their death?

Is the theory that the first COVID vaccines (plus COVID vaccines in subsequent years - boosters) were especially safe and reduced deaths dramatically, but that people who got their first COVID vaccines in subsequent years got something that caused far more deaths than it saved, and that's why 'vaccinated' group results are so good compared to the 'unvaccinated' group? (I am guessing you have some point you're trying to get to, and that's why you're avoiding questions like whether the process mentioned in my parent comments has the absolute best expected outcomes of any possible or theoretical approach, or what the better approach is if not?)

I mean, if the people in the unvaccinated group got vaccinated, then they are not really unvaccinated, right? So I am wondering if the study only consider "unvaccinated death" if the person was unvaccinated at the time of their death...

It probably means that you take the statistical evidence produced by massive double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials as actual evidence

That is not really an evidence unless you yourself eliminate any biases or flaws in the trial methodology.

Even trained professionals fail to do that regularly...

No, not really. The correct claim is "all evidence is imperfect."

But an FDA approved, Phase 3, double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial is the strongest form of evidence that we have for anything at all.

If it is not good enough, then it does not matter if it is the best available. Nature does not give a damn what the best solution humanity can come up with at some arbitrary point in time.

It is absolutely good enough lol. We have effective statistical certainty in the results.

Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air? Do you take any other medicines?

All of those are less well-understood than the COVID vaccines.

> We have effective statistical certainty in the results.

Only if you blindly trust the entities that is doing the studies.

Seriously, I am not sure how anyone with a couple of brain cells between their ears can do that.

>Tell me: how do you know the food you eat is safe? How about the water? The air?

I don't. But one don't have a choice. But for other things, one certainly do.

No, you really don't need to "blindly trust" the entities doing the studies.

I work in clinical trials. I know how they work. You do not.

>I work in clinical trials. I know how they work. You do not.

Ah, that makes perfect sense.

It is hard for a man to understand something when their salary depends on them not understanding it.

It's even harder when he's completely uncurious about how the world actually works ;)

Being curious does not help much if you are easily satisfied by bullshit answers, like "It works because I said so!"

Imagine thinking that placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trials say "it works because I said so."

Surprised you don't fall out of your own shoes in your upside-down world.

I am not distrusting the method. I am distrusting the person that claims to follow it, behind closed doors and comes out with only a result.

Again: This reveals an ignorance about how trials actually work. You should be more curious.

Clinical trials don't happen "behind closed doors and come out with only a result."

Clinical trials are run independently across hundreds if not thousands of research sites. The people who run these studies do not work for the pharma companies. They do not work with each other. They do not know whether the drugs they're giving each patient is the real drug or the placebo. They therefore have no way to coordinate fraud with each other and actually execute it at a scale required to both change the results and be undetectable (i.e. massive, systematic deviations on top of randomized data that produces something other than just "more noise"). Each of the thousands of people who would need to cooperate in this conspiracy would be risking years in prison, the destruction of their businesses, and the cancelation of their medical licenses... for... literally no benefit? The people actually running these studies (which are not the pharma companies themselves) don't get paid more or less money based on the results!

Every step from initial data entry through to data analysis is auditable and inspected by the FDA. The statistical analysis plan is written prior to any data being collected, and any ad-hoc deviation from the pre-established analysis plan must be defended to the FDA. No "data corrections" can happen once analysis has started without very specific audit and approval by FDA for each individual data correction.

Again: this is a really remarkable system that is a lot of fun to learn about if you have some curiosity. It's not perfect, but it's especially strong at the massive scale of the vaccine trials because there would be so many data points that need to be manipulated by so many independent parties that it's just a ridiculous notion.

He he...it is very funny that you just assume that I trust the FDA. I mean, the thought "May be this guy does not trust FDA" does not seem to have even cross your mind...

He he... it is very funny that you just assume this has anything to do with trust.

It has to do with incentives and capability.

Please describe the specific threat vector you're concerned about. Is it a rogue auditor changing some numbers around? Is it dozens of rogue reviewers just lying about what they see? Is it bribes? To whom? To do what, specifically?

Do you think the market is currently just flooded with ineffective or unsafe drugs because the FDA is bad at its job?

Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this?

Or are they also in cahoots, and they just love spending their profits on drugs that are either ineffective or actively damaging their risk pool?

Surely you must have an actual theory of how this fraud happens, otherwise I suppose you just believe things with no evidence (but make it smug).

"Skeptic" brainworm got another one, it appears. So skeptical (and uncurious) that he's rendered himself incapable of evaluating evidence. Many such cases, unfortunately.

Ah, you are really confused.

First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance.

Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients, and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy.

You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false), with something completely unrelated, which is that governments generally create a first-order insurance fund for vaccines in order to prevent unpredictable litigation costs from completely obliterating the economic viability of making vaccines.

By the way, these public insurance funds do not cover cases of manufacturing defects, fraud, or negligence. So even giving you the benefit of the doubt on each of your points of confusion... it's still 100% irrelevant to whatever argument you think you're making.

Again: Some more curiosity about the world would really do you wonders!

It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense.

> The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insurance against are the vaccines, under the state-backed programs.

I have already articulated why the state-backed programs do not obviate the need for product liability insurance. You should go back and read it again, but (again), with a little bit more actual curiosity.

Anyway, it's clear you don't have any actual theory (or base understanding) about how any of this works, or what the actual nefarious actions are, what's actually wrong, etc.

Until you can articulate specifically what you think is "going on" here, it's not worth my time trying to educate you on concepts like insurance coverage.

But anyway I actually do like your idea of selling a high-premium insurance to dumbasses for vaccine injuries. I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.