|
|
|
|
|
|
by maxerickson
1770 days ago
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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/...