There is a simple solution. I don't use any new drug (or vaccine) that has been in the market for less than ten years. Based on this simple criterion alone, I did not take any Covid vaccine.
Clinical trials done by the company that makes the drug/vaccine are worse than useless.
The primary mission of the FDA is not to prevent unsafe and ineffective drugs from entering the market. The PRIMARY mission of the FDA is to prevent safe and effective, natural (unpatentable) and inexpensive drugs from competing with the patented and expensive pharma drugs.
Imagine a market where you took away liability to encourage development, allowed regulatory capture. Any predictions on the quality of products in such a market? Oh..the regulatory body captured can dictate policy that compels the majority of people to consume the product.
I’ll repeat this. Until 1992, all FDA trials were self-funded by the government. That meant there was no direct monetary influence from biotech/pharma, and it forced the FDA to set priorities since there wasn’t enough money for very low-probability drugs or devices. We don’t let the Heritage Foundation fund the Marine Corps privately, so why should we allow Pfizer to fund the FDA?
Based on some comments, I think people are assuming that the corruption is intended to approve useless treatments. I’m a 64 year old oncologist who has seen an amazing change in treatments that work. Treatments for melanoma and lung cancer are truly incredible. When we studied drugs that were obviously beneficial we were told to do endless phase 3 studies while patients couldn’t access effective therapies and died waiting. Then we came up with accelerated approval. This also created too many drugs with questionable benefits. To dismiss the advances is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Reading that many followers of a seemingly cogent writer are suggesting waiting 10 years to take or recommend anything is downright moronic and irrational. I’m afraid the Substack has attracted too many antivaxers. Vinay has become more vitriolic which I believe triggers a stronger emotional response. I’m probably done following.
I think the first objective of any reform is to stop regulatory authorities from banning medical practitioners using medicines "off label" even if there is "no evidence" for the indication. If the doctor believes a medication works they should be allowed to prescribe it. We should be encouraging the use of generic drugs not siding with big pharma who want to restrict there use (for obvious reasons).
Hey VP, will you invite RFK, Jr on your podcast to shed light on the vaccine vs autism debate? Clearly, he does not consider this “settled science”-- and he often asks to be “proven wrong” (and pledges to retract his statements if provided with convincing evidence).
There is a simple solution. I don't use any new drug (or vaccine) that has been in the market for less than ten years. Based on this simple criterion alone, I did not take any Covid vaccine.
Clinical trials done by the company that makes the drug/vaccine are worse than useless.
The primary mission of the FDA is not to prevent unsafe and ineffective drugs from entering the market. The PRIMARY mission of the FDA is to prevent safe and effective, natural (unpatentable) and inexpensive drugs from competing with the patented and expensive pharma drugs.
It's not just the FDA. CDC, EPA - all share the same problem. See https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/rochelle-walensky-departs-cdc-we
Imagine a market where you took away liability to encourage development, allowed regulatory capture. Any predictions on the quality of products in such a market? Oh..the regulatory body captured can dictate policy that compels the majority of people to consume the product.
All you have to do to get smeared is tell the truth. Thanks Dr VP for not being deterred. We really appreciate what you are doing! ❤️
Will there be a day of accountability?
FDA Approval = business deal made.
I’ll repeat this. Until 1992, all FDA trials were self-funded by the government. That meant there was no direct monetary influence from biotech/pharma, and it forced the FDA to set priorities since there wasn’t enough money for very low-probability drugs or devices. We don’t let the Heritage Foundation fund the Marine Corps privately, so why should we allow Pfizer to fund the FDA?
Based on some comments, I think people are assuming that the corruption is intended to approve useless treatments. I’m a 64 year old oncologist who has seen an amazing change in treatments that work. Treatments for melanoma and lung cancer are truly incredible. When we studied drugs that were obviously beneficial we were told to do endless phase 3 studies while patients couldn’t access effective therapies and died waiting. Then we came up with accelerated approval. This also created too many drugs with questionable benefits. To dismiss the advances is to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Reading that many followers of a seemingly cogent writer are suggesting waiting 10 years to take or recommend anything is downright moronic and irrational. I’m afraid the Substack has attracted too many antivaxers. Vinay has become more vitriolic which I believe triggers a stronger emotional response. I’m probably done following.
The FDA, the CDC, the FBI, the CIA...it’s everywhere! Deep seated, long standing corruption being exposed.
The truth is oh so juicy... and painful
I think the first objective of any reform is to stop regulatory authorities from banning medical practitioners using medicines "off label" even if there is "no evidence" for the indication. If the doctor believes a medication works they should be allowed to prescribe it. We should be encouraging the use of generic drugs not siding with big pharma who want to restrict there use (for obvious reasons).
Hey VP, will you invite RFK, Jr on your podcast to shed light on the vaccine vs autism debate? Clearly, he does not consider this “settled science”-- and he often asks to be “proven wrong” (and pledges to retract his statements if provided with convincing evidence).