[maxerickson]

That's a really bad characterization though, the vaccine studies were designed with the participation of government scientists (for sure with Moderna, which was developed in partnership with NIH).

The idea that the corporate scientists are all utterly corrupt and also so much better at science that they can undermine the effectiveness of the vaccines without ruining them completely is nonsensical.

[gunapologist99]

Whether the vaccine works perfectly or not is actually completely irrelevant to the simple question of whether the government is inviting corruption by allowing what are effectively lobbyist scientists to apply suasion with "participating" in the studies, and aside from whether "participation" now adds the veneer of respectability that you cite.

[maxerickson]

Yeah, the scientists at the NIH aren't 'lobbyist scientists' (I think that's who you mean?), so if you think they are that, well, there's no real point in trying to discuss it.

The idea that the government overseeing efficacy study design invites corruption is also sort of tedious. Just deciding to regulate something reaches that same low bar of inviting corruption, but that would not be a good reason to not have regulation.

[gunapologist99]

> Yeah, the scientists at the NIH aren't 'lobbyist scientists' (I think that's who you mean?)

No, that's not what I mean. The scientists at Moderna are effectively lobbying for the effectiveness of their product and "inviting" NIH to apply a thin veneer of respectability by "participating" in their studies. It's no different from getting scientists at a large research university from "participating" in a large, well-funded corporate study; merely the association of the well-known brand gives the study a certain gravitas, but, and perhaps more importantly, bathes it in an aura of independence.

If I invent a new vitamin supplement and claim to have clinical studies that it does anything at all, fine. If I invite the FDA to "participate" in the studies, and they accept, then that instantly changes everything.

And if those seemingly independent FDA scientists then actively shill (or even demand) that my product be widely deployed, even better.

And NIH is doing a lot more beyond "regulating". If that was all they were doing, we'd have no argument, but NIH is actually issuing "public health" decrees that are becoming de facto mandates for hundreds of millions of people, and keeping secret any data that might go against their preferred narrative.

"Pfizer, Moderna seen reaping billions from COVID-19 vaccine booster market"

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

[maxerickson]

You understand that the NIH did the basic research on the Moderna mRNA vaccine?

The proper rabid screaming is that public research was privatized for profit, not that a public research agency is giving a veneer of respectability to a scam vaccine.

And then there's also the option of not rabidly screaming.

[pluc]

The research is funded by the government and the profits are kept by the companies. You don't need to get on your high horse with "really bad characterization" or "nonsensical". We were told two vaccines would be enough, and now it seems like we're getting a third. That nonsense you mentioned is happening. Whether it's happening because we didn't have the data for the Delta variant at the time of research, I can believe, but you won't convince me that the CEOs of those companies aren't joyful finding strains that resist their vaccines.

[moltar]

If you want examples of years of bad scientific advice take a look at the food pyramid. It literally consists of interest group representation. It’s not based solid on science.

[defaulty]

> The idea that the corporate scientists are all utterly corrupt

I don't believe the scientists are corrupt, but there's been enough corrupt businessmen in America that I take everything they say with a bag of salt. Promoting boosters sooner than needed is par for the course