Covid/mRNA Vaccine Info General - "Covid Seasonal Flu Vaccines is Society's New Normal" - FDA

[Otterly]

Ask yourself, can a charity with links to a pharmaceutical company that stands to profit massively from the pandemic be trusted to give legal advice to thousands of organisations when they may have differing interests?

Well it’s a tough one, but I’ll go with, “no.”

 

[Astral Alley]

Source: Trust me bro!

Since you refuse to provide actual sources, I'll provide sources with evidence against your claims.

More mutations isnt an issue, its what the environmental selection pressure does with them that counts. A billion strains selected for lower virulence isnt an issue - two strains selected for immune evasion is. Mutation is the raw material for evolution - the direction of evolution is dictated mainly by the selection pressure. Survival of the fittest.

While your statement is true for evolution in general, literature on how virus variants occur largely contradicts this. The mutation rate is the most important factor for developing a mutation that increases the spread of the virus. Like what happened with Delta.

Virus mutations create genetic diversity, which is subject to the opposing actions of selection and random genetic drift, both of which are directly affected by the size of the virus population. When the population size is large, selection will be predominant and random drift less common. This means that deleterious alleles will be efficiently removed from the population, while adaptive alleles will have an opportunity to take over the population. However, when the population size is small, random effects may obscure the effects of selection. Under these conditions, slightly deleterious alleles may rise to an unexpectedly high frequency in the population, and adaptive alleles may be lost by chance.

No matter how right the environment for selection pressure is, evolution won't happen at any significant rate if the number of viruses in total remains small. The vaccines are extremely effective at keeping these numbers small for most infections. Delta is seen at similar viral loads as infected individuals in some cases, but this in of itself is not evidence for virus-driven evolution.
When it comes to increasing the deadliness of coronaviruses, this too has been studied for SARS and MERS with the goal of understanding how ADE would appear in Covid.

From previous research on ADE in other coronaviruses, in particular SARS-CoV and MERS-CoV, it appears that the existence of ADE will elicit more severe body injury, while actually reducing the viral load at the same time.

In previous cases of ADE, such as with the Respiratory Syncitial Virus (RSV) vaccine, this effect was seen in both cell cultures and primates.

These effects have not yet been observedfor COVID-19. Not in animal trials. Not in human trials. Not in the general public. In fact, the symptoms have almost entirely been less severe.
It's still possible that ADE could occur, just like it's possible I could get in a car wreck tomorrow, but it's not likely. There was some behavior of the coronavirus early on in China that people thought could be attributed to early ADE, but this behavior could not be replicated with convalescent plasma therapy nor inactivated vaccine candidates (which are known for producing ADE).

In fact, there aren't many cases of ADE documented with Coronaviruses in general. With SARS, there was one vaccine candidate out of four in one study, but two other studies failed to observe any ADE.

(Are there vaccines for the nucleocapsid? I'm still new to all this.)

Nevertheless, researchers chose to target the spike protein specifically because it was much less likely to lead to ADE than viruses targeting the nucleocapsid, which did show some signs of possible ADE, and also nucleocapsid-targeting antibodies are less effective at combating variants compared to the spike antibodies.

There is one researcher who hypothesizes that ADE may still be a sizable risk for COVID-19, even for spike-targeting antigens. It's not a concern that is outright dismissed. However, there has not yet been any empirical data showing signs of vaccine-driven ADE to date.

No this is variation within the antibodies within one small bit - the RBD. It’s not able to give antibodies to the nucleocapsid or any other viral components. The epidemiology is tentatively showing this too - those with prior confirmed infection seem to be falling ill at lower rates to those vaccinated.

Recent research (preprint) suggests the opposite for mRNA vaccines, and not for the CoronaVac, which is China's vaccine that uses the whole virus.

These results indicate that mRNA vaccination rapidly induces a much stronger and broader Ab response than SARS-CoV-2 infection.

A LOT of what they're saying lines up basic biology education from like high school and such. Even the stuff about evolution and selection pressure on viruses.

It makes sense following basic biology for high school, yes. But there is a reason that Virologists aren't given employment with a simple high school diploma. Reality can often be a lot more complex than high school biology education allows time to learn.
There are many theories that make sense, but are also wrong or unsupported by observational data.

 

[Otterly]

The mutation rate is the most important factor for developing a mutation that increases the spread of the virus. Like what happened with Delta.

Ah now you’ve moved the goalposts to spread. Before it was turning it into the andromeda strain. Which are we arguing here? Becasue if we go with mutations that encourage spread, you’re looking at lower virulence. And here’s why that is a good thing! As they say.

These effects have not yet been observedfor COVID-19. Not in animal trials. Not in human trials. Not in the general public.

Well no of course they haven’t. Almost no animal trials were done. Almost no preclinical work was done. The trials that were done were poorly controlled, and poorly designed and too short. And they didn’t have any way of detecting it properly, did they? Or were patients all extensively tested to look at what kind of T cell immunity they had and what strain they were exposed to before enrolment (nope.) the actually IS some real world data which tentatively hints at ADE - the ZOE app in the uk seems to show it. But you wouldn’t expect it to show up now. ADE needs distinct serotypes in most models and we dont have that yet. We have no way of knowing if it will happen - will it? I don’t know. It needs to remain in the radar for real world surveillance for sure. Do you disagree?

However, there has not yet been any empirical data showing signs of vaccine-driven ADE to date.

As above. Why would we see it strongly now? ZOE app data seems to show something bit more work needed. Will it happen? I dont know. What concerns me is the total rejection of the idea it could. That’s unwise.

The vaccines are extremely effective at keeping these numbers small for most infections. Delta is seen at similar viral loads as infected individuals in some cases,

Really? most? How much is most? who is looking? Some? How much is some? What proportion of patients are tested for viral load?

(preprint) suggests the opposite for mRNA vaccines, and not for the CoronaVac, which is China's vaccine that uses the whole virus.

We arent taking about coronavax, we are talking about the claim that the naturally infected MUST have boosters. Here is the papers argument for this : “In natural exposure there was no significant cross-reactivity against SARS S1 or the RBD domains. Surprisingly, the vaccine induced significant cross-reactive Abs against the SARS spike and SARS RBD. Cross-reactivity against SARS NP and full-length MERS S protein is evident in both the natural exposure and vaccinated groups. These results indicate that antibody responses against spike RBD variants are significantly elevated in vaccinated compared to naturally exposed individuals. Vaccination induces a more robust antibody response than natural exposure alone, suggesting that those who have recovered from COVID benefit from the vaccination with stronger and broader antibody response.”
They’re saying that the antibodies to spike components cross react more with other Coronaviruses like spike and MERS. That’s evidenced in the paper. However they then jump to saying that this means naturally infected patients must get a new injection. BUT this is not bourne out by their data at all. They are assuming that the response to spike is the primary immune response in the body. What matters to immunity is what the body can get hold of and take out. So what DOES happen in the body? Is the immune system going after spike or nucleocapsid? Well their data says nucleocapsid:
“Natural exposure induces a dominant Ab response against the nucleocapsid protein (NP), but since NP is not in the vaccine, there is no vaccine induced response against it. “
So the body is actually making antibodies to NP, NOT spike as the dominant type. That’s interesting, because it implies the immune system uses that to take out the virus. So let’s look at what vaccination does (oh nothing, only to spike.) their paper is fine for the data it’s producing but it’s relying on the assumption that spike, and only spike, is the key mediator of natural immunity, when it seems that other viral components may be the main target. I would be willing to bet as well that those who got sicker would have a response with slightly more NP antibody types and those who got mildly ill may have very slightly more spike. The response from mucosa surfaces can differ from that of deep lung tissue.
I will bet that natural exposure does what it did with sars and MERS - it provides long lasting, t and B cell immunity to covid and will do for a very long time. But the epidemiology will bear it out one way or another. Relying purely on one subunit of spike as the antigen producing target is short sighted. We will see what happens as the whole sorry mess unfolds.
I don’t know if the vaccines are safe. I hope they are, but there are some gaps in the safety testing and there is too much political bollocks for me to trust the push to vaccinate everyone.

 

[mr.moon1488]

I'd imagine a lot. Most A&Hers are basically boomers even though they're like 1/3 their age

>basically boomers
SNEED!

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

>basically boomers
SNEED!
View attachment 2414524

So other than a simpsons meme, what is it? When people say "stop sneeding", what does it mean?

 

[mr.moon1488]

So other than a simpsons meme, what is it? When people say "stop sneeding", what does it mean?

Sneed means sneed. What's so difficult about this?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Sneed means sneed. What's so difficult about this?

Ahh so you don't know either then

 

[mr.moon1488]

Ahh so you don't know either then

But I do. It means sneed.

 

[Dindus]

Sure gulp down some retard's cherrypicking

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Ah now you’ve moved the goalposts to spread. Before it was turning it into the andromeda strain. Which are we arguing here? Becasue if we go with mutations that encourage spread, you’re looking at lower virulence. And here’s why that is a good thing! As they say.

Not necessarily. Covid is already pretty damn contagious, even before symptoms start, and even in cases where it is deadly, people don't die from it until many days after their infection starts. So it can kill off its host, but it's already had chances to spread plenty before the host dies. And with the more hosts a virus has, the more chances it has to mutate, this could be really bad.

Saying something that's highly contagious isn't deadly is a huge mistake. HIV is pretty contagious given the right vector and is super deadly (without modern medical treatment). Small pox had a death rate of 30% and was very, very contagious.

The trials that were done were poorly controlled, and poorly designed and too short.

How so?

And they didn’t have any way of detecting it properly, did they?

Detecting what?

Since you were touting unproven treatments (like ivermectin and HCQ) and vitamin D as proven treatments for covid and saying the "trials were designed to fail" (when the studies showing they work were the exact opposite, where they gave better-outcome patients the treatment), and saying the vaccine is more dangerous for people your age than the virus, I am very skeptical of your claims of being a medical researcher.

You seem like just another "BIG PHARMA IS ALWAYS BAD BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY!" spaz only you're just upping the ante by claiming to work for big pharma. Even agreeing with schizOP about the spike protein thing even though the study concludes the exact opposite of what you guys are saying

 

[Poppavalyim Andropoff]

Australian government pushing their Astra vaccine despite someone else dying today from side effects

 

[Uncle Warren]

Now for a magic question that will get me so many dumb ratings because fuck it:

If the delta variant is infecting people even if they're vaccinated, what is the point to get vaccinated at all?

 

[Otterly]

Saying something that's highly contagious isn't deadly is a huge mistake.

No, that’s not what I was saying. I was saying that a virus’s natural lifecycle tends to greater transmissibility and lower virulence - this maximises it’s fitness.

How so?

Oh man. Well: sorry I could bang on aboit this for days. Basically. Control groups were a meningitis vaccine, not ‘nothing.’ Poor recruitment leading to having to scrape around for patients. No long term follow up, no arm structure to separate out groups. For example: people previously infected, people with a degree of prior immunity. Poor subject control so that there were cases of patients ‘study shopping’ and doing multiple studies. Not long enough to detect mid term effects. Insufficient power to detect real word level of side effects. Subjects totally lost to follow up.

Since you were touting unproven treatments (like ivermectin and HCQ) and vitamin D as proven treatments for covid and saying the "trials were designed to fail"

Again you’re twisting what I said. HCQ shows some activity but has toxicity issues and needs zinc to function (it’s basically acting like an ionophore I think.). Ivermectin shows very good activity. Vit d deficiency is strongly correlated with deaths. The upcoming ivermectin trial at Oxford IS designed to fail, and anyone who’s ever designed a trial will see that. It picks a population who are already at higher risk. It doses them with a dose much lower than the regime used by the FLCC amd for only three days. It’s an inadequate treatment regime in a population that’s skewed. It’ll be statistically flawed.

BIG PHARMA IS ALWAYS BAD BECAUSE THEY MAKE MONEY!" spaz only you're just upping the ante by claiming to work for big pharma.

I don’t work for big pharma. I’ve worked amd still work with. Not for. They’re large, sometimes predatory companies who make lifesaving drugs, and who make drugs that are less efficient. They spend a lot of money doing so and they make a lot of money back. They have a track record of both saving lives and of engaging in practices that kill, maim and defraud. Like everything in life it’s more complex than baddies and goodies. They can do good things and they can do bad. Like people at large, and like the government.
Rather a lot of responses to my fairly reasonable points. I’m not saying this is ‘5glizardmenpopulatiinslaughter! ‘I’m saying it’s money, greed, power and politics rather than good clinical practice and evidence based medicine. Am I, as the kids say, ‘over the target’ ?

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

For example: people previously infected, people with a degree of prior immunity. Poor subject control so that there were cases of patients ‘study shopping’ and doing multiple studies. Not long enough to detect mid term effects. Insufficient power to detect real word level of side effects. Subjects totally lost to follow up.

The clinical study that I signed up for, for the covid vaccine, did do checking if I had previously had covid as much as they could. Most vaccine side effects show up within a few months of getting the vaccine, so they had enough testing and very few were lost to follow up (only if the patient themselves stopped showing up).

Again you’re twisting what I said. HCQ shows some activity but has toxicity issues and needs zinc to function (it’s basically acting like an ionophore I think.). Ivermectin shows very good activity. Vit d deficiency is strongly correlated with deaths. The upcoming ivermectin trial at Oxford IS designed to fail, and anyone who’s ever designed a trial will see that. It picks a population who are already at higher risk. It doses them with a dose much lower than the regime used by the FLCC amd for only three days. It’s an inadequate treatment regime in a population that’s skewed. It’ll be statistically flawed.

HCQ doesn't work, even with zinc. The studies that showed it did had it given to patients with a better outcome. Same with ivermectin trials that showed it worked. In the real random ones, HCQ was shown to not work. You should know this, Mr Medical Researcher

I don’t work for big pharma. I’ve worked amd still work with. Not for. They’re large, sometimes predatory companies who make lifesaving drugs, and who make drugs that are less efficient. They spend a lot of money doing so and they make a lot of money back. They have a track record of both saving lives and of engaging in practices that kill, maim and defraud. Like everything in life it’s more complex than baddies and goodies. They can do good things and they can do bad. Like people at large, and like the government.
Rather a lot of responses to my fairly reasonable points. I’m not saying this is ‘5glizardmenpopulatiinslaughter! ‘I’m saying it’s money, greed, power and politics rather than good clinical practice and evidence based medicine. Am I, as the kids say, ‘over the target’ ?

Why would pharmaceutical companies intentionally make less effective drugs? You'd just be inviting the competition to make a better one...

Computer companies make profits, too, yet you are using a computer. Car companies do, too, yet I bet you drive a car. Every company is out to make a profit. The FDA, however, is not, and they approved the vaccine. I get being skeptical but when 99% of doctors and scientists say it's safe and effective, you should probably side with them

Again, considering you are spouting well-debunked talking points and even said the spike protein thing that schizOP talked about was legit, even though the very study said the exact opposite of what his concerns were (which you didn't even acknowledge but just brushed off), I suspect you are not truly a medical researcher but just another rando pretending to be for talking points

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

Now for a magic question that will get me so many dumb ratings because fuck it:

If the delta variant is infecting people even if they're vaccinated, what is the point to get vaccinated at all?

It is infecting some vaccinated people. It's mostly effective, but it's not 100% effective (nothing in life is). Seatbelts aren't 100% effective yet people still use those

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

While your statement is true for evolution in general, literature on how virus variants occur largely contradicts this. The mutation rate is the most important factor for developing a mutation that increases the spread of the virus. Like what happened with Delta.

Imperfect sterilization is what actually leads to vaccine-resistant lineages:

The Effect of Vaccination on the Evolution and Population Dynamics of Avian Paramyxovirus-1

Author Summary Modified live virus (MLV) vaccines have been effective in reducing disease burden and economic loss caused by Newcastle Disease (ND) in domestic poultry. Because the vaccine is a live virus, it is transmissible among birds. Thus, vaccination strategies have the potential to impact...

journals.plos.org

Imperfect Vaccination Can Enhance the Transmission of Highly Virulent Pathogens

A study using Marek's disease virus in poultry shows that by reducing natural selection against highly virulent strains, imperfect vaccination enables the spread of viral strains that would otherwise be too lethal to persist.

journals.plos.org

You're also ignoring that while mutation is random, selection is not. Again see the Peppered Moths.

The fact that "Delta" variant, along with the California variants B.1.427 and B.1.429, New York variant B.1.526, and Japan/Brazil variant P.1 already show the ability to not only infect, but also reduce the symptomatic efficacy of the vaccines means that its not a random chance "what if" until vaccine-resistant lineages emerge, but that they are already here and already reproducing in spite of vaccination.

No matter how right the environment for selection pressure is, evolution won't happen at any significant rate if the number of viruses in total remains small. The vaccines are extremely effective at keeping these numbers small for most infections. Delta is seen at similar viral loads as infected individuals in some cases, but this in of itself is not evidence for virus-driven evolution.
When it comes to increasing the deadliness of coronaviruses, this too has been studied for SARS and MERS with the goal of understanding how ADE would appear in Covid.

1) You vastly underestimate just how fast SARS-CoV-2 mutates, while also vastly underestimating how many viral particles are present even in a "small" load.

2) You still, for whatever reason be it ignorance or malice, assume that ADE is the only result of viral evolution, which is not the case what so ever

Now for a magic question that will get me so many dumb ratings because fuck it:

If the delta variant is infecting people even if they're vaccinated, what is the point to get vaccinated at all?

From an individual standpoint, vaccination means you're less likely to end up in the hospital and less likely to die when you get infected.

From a population-level evolutionary standpoint, virtually nothing except to maybe temporarily delay viral evolution a few more months at best.

 

[Otterly]

The clinical study that I signed up for, for the covid vaccine, did do checking if I had previously had covid as much as they could.

How did they check? We’re you asked ‘had the coof?’ Or did they conduct a full panel of testing to see which antibodies you had?

Most vaccine side effects show up within a few months of getting the vaccine, so they had enough testing

Ah yes that’s a big ‘point to put in’ - seen that in a lot of the shills. Polio anyone? Cancer? We do t know what the mid term effects are. Hopefully none, but no other drug gets a pass with ‘nah be fine most effects turn up fast.’ All drugs, and all vaccines, are subject to real world monitoring post release. They don’t have enough testing, because NO trials for entirely new medications or vaccines get done in a few months. They take years, even for minor tweaks of existing drugs. The last trial I worked with is six years follow up and that’s for a thing that’s a tiny minor change to something already trialled, approved and out in the real world. Six years - and samples kept for twenty five.

Why would pharmaceutical companies intentionally make less effective drugs?

It’s not that they set out to make a drug that doesn’t work. What happens is you have spent hundreds of millions on your molecule and you want returns. Some minor cherry picking of results, a few tweaks here and there and not reporting the negatives? Maybe now you’ve got equivalence? Or maybe you’ve got access to a whole new market if you can convince people to use your drug for it (Lupron.) Or things like Vioxx - tested and passed, but actually a killer. The whistleblowers were hounded, and the drug ‘voluntarily removed’ from market. Other times, pharma helps. I’ve seen colleagues volunteer time and expertise for the covid effort, seen people fly out to the Ebola outbreak and put their lives on the line .

Same with ivermectin trials that showed it worked.

Nope. Here’s one meta analysis :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
Archive: https://archive.is/wip/fdaFX
It works. Works in the real world too - look at the Indian data of states vs the state of Tamil Nadu. More drugs in the avermectin class like ivermectin will be repurposed and there’s a whole load of 3CL protease inhibitors in the works as well.

You should know this, Mr Medical Researcher

Mrs. Or Doctor.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

How did they check? We’re you asked ‘had the coof?’ Or did they conduct a full panel of testing to see which antibodies you had?

They asked, but since there is no reliable way to know for sure (antibody test gives a ton of false positives), I am not sure what you'd have them do.

Ah yes that’s a big ‘point to put in’ - seen that in a lot of the shills. Polio anyone? Cancer? We do t know what the mid term effects are. Hopefully none, but no other drug gets a pass with ‘nah be fine most effects turn up fast.’ All drugs, and all vaccines, are subject to real world monitoring post release. They don’t have enough testing, because NO trials for entirely new medications or vaccines get done in a few months. They take years, even for minor tweaks of existing drugs. The last trial I worked with is six years follow up and that’s for a thing that’s a tiny minor change to something already trialled, approved and out in the real world. Six years - and samples kept for twenty five.

You didn't even address my point there.

It’s not that they set out to make a drug that doesn’t work. What happens is you have spent hundreds of millions on your molecule and you want returns. Some minor cherry picking of results, a few tweaks here and there and not reporting the negatives? Maybe now you’ve got equivalence? Or maybe you’ve got access to a whole new market if you can convince people to use your drug for it (Lupron.) Or things like Vioxx - tested and passed, but actually a killer. The whistleblowers were hounded, and the drug ‘voluntarily removed’ from market. Other times, pharma helps. I’ve seen colleagues volunteer time and expertise for the covid effort, seen people fly out to the Ebola outbreak and put their lives on the line .

So you're a doctor but don't even know how FDA approval process works? The companies doing the studies constantly give their data to the FDA, who then reviews it. They don't just make up their own data. Yes there are cases where it has issues, but those are overall pretty rare and I don't see people tardraging about other drugs.

Nope. Here’s one meta analysis :https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/
Archive: https://archive.md/wip/fdaFX
It works. Works in the real world too - look at the Indian data of states vs the state of Tamil Nadu. More drugs in the avermectin class like ivermectin will be repurposed and there’s a whole load of 3CL protease inhibitors in the works as well.

I already told you the flaws with the Indian study, where even the people doing the study said that it was not really a valid data set.

Mrs. Or Doctor.

But you said earlier you work for pharmaceutical research. Plus, an OR doctor is a surgeon (or do you mean a DO?). Changing your story, eh?

You can admit you're lying or super heavily biased any time now.

 

[Otterly]

They asked, but since there is no reliable way to know for sure (antibody test gives a ton of false positives), I am not sure what you'd have them do

There is a way. It requires looking at the whole suite of antibodies the person produces. Those who have antibodies to parts of the nucleocapsid can be assumed to have had covid and can be distinguished from those vaccinated. The lateral flow tests are a bit shonky tbh, they test only specific antibodies and none seem to have decently positive/negative false readings.

So you're a doctor but don't even know how FDA approval process works? The companies doing the studies constantly give their data to the FDA, who then reviews it. They don't just make up their own data. Yes there are cases where it has issues, but those are overall pretty rare and I don't see people tardraging about other drugs.

I know quite well how FDA /MHRA etc approval works, lol. The FDA doesn’t constantly view in trial - you can sometimes have an interim lock to look at things and that’s often done in trial where you might want to pause and assess (adaptive trial designs often do this.) usually the CSR (study report) along with tables amd listings and safety data gets sent as a package and the FDA or other regulatory body reviews that. Often with comments, or queries. Sometimes they disagree with the data. Sometimes multiple trials are run and the ones with best results and lowest side effects are published while others aren’t. Robexatine for example - is actually NOT superior to placebo amd has more side effects, but the data presented to the MHRA was of the one or two trial runs out of many that showed superiority to placebo/competitors and lower side effects. The industry is rife with this. It’s getting better, with things like full reporting practices but it still goes on.

I already told you the flaws with the Indian study, where even the people doing the study said that it was not really a valid data set.

That paper is a meta analysis.

You can admit you're lying or super heavily biased any time now.

But you said earlier you work for pharmaceutical research. Plus, an OR doctor is a surgeon (or do you mean a DO?). Changing your story, eh?

Let me explain this very simply. I am Mrs, Otterly because I am wed in holy matrimony to Mr. Otterly. I am also Dr. Otterly. Thus, you may use mrs, or Dr. But not Mr.

or​

[ awr; unstressed er ]

Conjunction
(used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.

 

[Hollywood Hulk Hogan]

There is a way. It requires looking at the whole suite of antibodies the person produces. Those who have antibodies to parts of the nucleocapsid can be assumed to have had covid and can be distinguished from those vaccinated. The lateral flow tests are a bit shonky tbh, they test only specific antibodies and none seem to have decently positive/negative false readings.

Wasn't that test only available after they started the vaccine trials?

That paper is a meta analysis.

And?

Let me explain this very simply. I am Mrs, Otterly because I am wed in holy matrimony to Mr. Otterly. I am also Dr. Otterly. Thus, you may use mrs, or Dr. But not Mr.

or​

[ awr; unstressed er ]

Conjunction
(used to connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives): books or magazines; to be or not to be.

You shouldn't have capitalized "or" then, because it looked like you were saying "OR Doctor"

I know quite well how FDA /MHRA etc approval works, lol. The FDA doesn’t constantly view in trial - you can sometimes have an interim lock to look at things and that’s often done in trial where you might want to pause and assess (adaptive trial designs often do this.) usually the CSR (study report) along with tables amd listings and safety data gets sent as a package and the FDA or other regulatory body reviews that. Often with comments, or queries. Sometimes they disagree with the data. Sometimes multiple trials are run and the ones with best results and lowest side effects are published while others aren’t. Robexatine for example - is actually NOT superior to placebo amd has more side effects, but the data presented to the MHRA was of the one or two trial runs out of many that showed superiority to placebo/competitors and lower side effects. The industry is rife with this. It’s getting better, with things like full reporting practices but it still goes on.

You are really saying that pharmaceutical companies intentionally make up data (based on what you said in the previous post, too)? Lol jesus christ, if you really believe that us debating is pointless because it's obvious you're heavily biased against scientists and doctors.

So other than not trusting doctors and scientists and phamaceutical companies, what are your issues with the vaccine that make you come here and spout anti-vax talking points? After all, there's not many anti-vax pharmaceutical researchers that don't even trust their own coworkers or industry