re: #22 goddamnedfrank

This is pedantic and stupid. The FDA approval process requires proof of efficacy in double blind studies overseen by independent review boards. Moreover any and all adverse events must be statistically analyzed such that the risks to the population as a whole cannot outweigh the benefits.

LOL. Your fantasy scenario of the oversight process is a ridiculous caricature, for one thing the CDC plays no role in which vaccines and drugs are approved. The FDA and IRB personnel are often career scientists within those particular orgs, and they get paid whether or not they approve any particular drug. Very few of the scientists ever get involved in lobbying and almost none ever make it to Congress (how were you even able to type this with a straight face?) I’ve worked on drug trials from the big pharma end and there’s really no room to make adverse events disappear from view. There’s multiple layers of redundancy and all data is inputted, reviewed, verified several times before it hits the biostatisticians and clinical research analysts. Even after that the data is subject to random audits that go back to the originating clinic’s records, any kind of systemic fraud would be very, very difficult to pull off in that environment.

I doubt ‘Laura No’ actually knows anything about how the FDA or pharma companies work other than the dishonestly potted version she picked up on the internet. Most people don’t really understand how a drug gets approved, which is how conspiracism like hers takes root. Heck, I only know because of my work.

The public needs to be better educated about how the government really works.