I think you've fundamentally missed GP's point which is that when governments lie, they do it because they're self-interested. When a politician tells you something that isn't true, they're lying to make themself seem better or to make their opponents seem worse. (Or, to take an example of "the government" lying to you, when the NSA says they aren't collecting certain data about US citizens, their motivation for lying is avoiding the public outcry should their actions be revealed). What's the motivation behind a global cabal of governments, scientists, independent regulators and drug companies all lying to us about vaccines?
I'd love to actually know how many truly independent scientists work on "looking into these things".
Does anyone have a quantifiable number. I'm again, not doubting what you're saying, but I hear a lot of "thousands of scientists are vetting the medicine etc".
Are they really ?
I think about this with open source software too, I run Linux, but I do actually wonder sometimes how much "vetting" is really going on.
What's considered "truly independent"? Aren't scientists at the various drug companies "independent" from each other, given that vaccines are mostly zero-sum and so drug companies have strong financial incentives to invalidate their competitors' tech? Aren't governments independent from drug companies, given that rolling out an unsafe vaccine would be political suicide? Aren't the scientists who actually work for the government regulators independent from the governments themselves, given that they aren't political appointees and have nothing to gain politically from getting a bunch of people to take an unsafe vaccine (and presumably are motivated by public health, given their career path)? Aren't the academic scientists doing COVID-related research and peer-reviewing COVID-related publications independent from all of the above?
Not to peddle conspiracies but here are some hypotheticals to match yours:
>Aren't scientists at the various drug companies "independent" from each other, given that vaccines are mostly zero-sum and so drug companies have strong financial incentives to invalidate their competitors' tech?
Vaccines are very much not zero game. They are largely interchangable in that governments are under severe pressure to get something / anything into peoples' arms if it means quelling the masses and shaking off COVID-19. We are seeing countries mixing and matching for the double dose vaccines, not to mention every country approving at least two vaccines for usage. If this were zero-game, then governments would seek to only buy the most effective vaccine and do everything possible to secure supply.
As a phramaceutical, choosing to pick holes in your competitors' products may increase your market share temporarily, but will bring scrutiny from your competitors and overall decrease confidence in vaccines. As an example of the prisoner's dilemna, the best way to maximize everyone's share is by just focusing on your own product.
>Aren't governments independent from drug companies, given that rolling out an unsafe vaccine would be political suicide?
At the absolute highest levels, sure. But at the level of the faceless beaurocrats actually making decisions, it is very much a revolving door between industry and government (oversight bodies in particular). Governing body (decision maker) one day, lobbying on behalf of drug makers the next.
>Aren't the scientists who actually work for the government regulators independent from the governments themselves, given that they aren't political appointees and have nothing to gain politically from getting a bunch of people to take an unsafe vaccine (and presumably are motivated by public health, given their career path)?
Same as previous, and it is also very easy for there to be conflicts of interest... even if we assume ample competence in scrutnizing the pretty pamphlets drug makers try to deceive with. There are many ways drug makers can subtly introduce bias or error into their trials. Well intentioned oversight bodies could still be deceived and later have to recall products they have approved (many drugs are recalled after data about effectiveness and side-effects appear from actual use in the population).
>Aren't the academic scientists doing COVID-related research and peer-reviewing COVID-related publications independent from all of the above?
Same as previous, wrt. source of money for studies and journals themselves. We have also seen people acting out of self-interest when their entire field was pulled into question (scientists working in the field of gain of function publishing letters and articles clearing their field of all doubt without substantiative arguments made, e.g. the origins of the virus).
Currently booked in for my Pfizer vaccine (still on the fence about it, a week out). I try look up information about what causes heart inflammation in young men. I do this because it troubles me the mechanism doesn't seem to be understood.
Anyway, when using Google to find information on the topic, top of the search results are news articles from Reuters about the fact it's a known problem, but it's ok.
Do you know who is on the board at Pfizer ? The CEO of Thompson Reuters! James C Smith [1]
I'm the same, not really into pedaling conspiracies, but this definitely feels like a conflict of interest, and it would also disincentive people to speak out, I'm sure someone in his position could make a high-profile persons life difficult if he wanted too.
When considering whether to get vaccinated, you basically have to ask yourself two questions.
1. what are the side effects of the vaccine?
2. what are the side effects of infection with the virus?
In addition, there is the question of what is the probability of the corresponding side effects of vaccination and infection.
All study data that I know of say that serious side effects are 5 - 8 times more likely to occur with an infection with the virus.
In addition, one would have to ask how likely it is that one will be infected with the virus. Here, one can only base ones thinking on mathematical models. At present, it does not look as if we will be able to achieve herd immunity worldwide. That would mean that sooner or later everyone who is not vaccinated would be infected with the virus.
This from the peer reviewed studies I have searched and read via pubmed in the last few months.
> What's the motivation behind a global cabal of governments, scientists, independent regulators and drug companies all lying to us about vaccines?
This is like asking “what incentive does the government have to keep up the airport security theatre?”.
To play up the pandemic, increase the FUD, rule by fear and panic, keep the population permanently locked down, restricted, controlled, … a lot of very juicy incentives for a lot of politicians.
