[estearum]

He he... it is very funny that you just assume this has anything to do with trust.

It has to do with incentives and capability.

Please describe the specific threat vector you're concerned about. Is it a rogue auditor changing some numbers around? Is it dozens of rogue reviewers just lying about what they see? Is it bribes? To whom? To do what, specifically?

Do you think the market is currently just flooded with ineffective or unsafe drugs because the FDA is bad at its job?

Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this?

Or are they also in cahoots, and they just love spending their profits on drugs that are either ineffective or actively damaging their risk pool?

Surely you must have an actual theory of how this fraud happens, otherwise I suppose you just believe things with no evidence (but make it smug).

"Skeptic" brainworm got another one, it appears. So skeptical (and uncurious) that he's rendered himself incapable of evaluating evidence. Many such cases, unfortunately.

[qsera]

> Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this?

They have. That is why they don't sell an insurance against vaccine injuries...

[estearum]

Ah, you are really confused.

First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance.

Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients, and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy.

You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false), with something completely unrelated, which is that governments generally create a first-order insurance fund for vaccines in order to prevent unpredictable litigation costs from completely obliterating the economic viability of making vaccines.

By the way, these public insurance funds do not cover cases of manufacturing defects, fraud, or negligence. So even giving you the benefit of the doubt on each of your points of confusion... it's still 100% irrelevant to whatever argument you think you're making.

Again: Some more curiosity about the world would really do you wonders!

[qsera]

Obviously I am talking about insurances for the general population..

Why don't you stick to answering the point that I am raising, instead of responding with some...arbitrary thing...

The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

The "government fund" does not anyway prevent existence of such an insurance. So why is that not a thing, given that there is a large number of people who are worried about it, and is probably willing to pay large premiums for it...

It is interesting that you are aware of this government fund, and still brings up corporate libaility claim (which the fund makes irrelavant) shows that you cannot even reconcile the very the facts that you are aware of...

[estearum]

It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense.

> The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insurance against are the vaccines, under the state-backed programs.

I have already articulated why the state-backed programs do not obviate the need for product liability insurance. You should go back and read it again, but (again), with a little bit more actual curiosity.

Anyway, it's clear you don't have any actual theory (or base understanding) about how any of this works, or what the actual nefarious actions are, what's actually wrong, etc.

Until you can articulate specifically what you think is "going on" here, it's not worth my time trying to educate you on concepts like insurance coverage.

But anyway I actually do like your idea of selling a high-premium insurance to dumbasses for vaccine injuries. I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.

[qsera]

> I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.

I dare you, I double dare you...

>it's not worth my time trying to educate..

Exactly why I am not spending too much time to educate you...

The flaw in your reasoning is here

>You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false)

I didn't confuse anything. I went of slightly in a tangent because I don't want to spend too much time to educating you. Because ultimately our differences arise from what or what not we trust or what scale conspiracy we think is possible or not, or how broad or narrow our consideration of the reality is. You will never admit that and will go and on and on...Don't have time for that. Sorry.