Golfer144, TenQ is finding out now how poor reviews and scrutiny of Pfizers fraudulent vaccine trials are affecting he world. You're wrong as usual. But unlike most of your other posts, which are devoid of any value whatsoever, I think it's worth responding to this one.
The key question behind shoddy peer reviews is this: What do I have to lose?
When it comes to simply getting published, it doesn't matter how reliable your research is, or how reproducible it is, or how thorough the peer review process was. Just go through the motions, get published, and move onto the next project.
But when it comes to FDA drug approvals, there IS no margin for error, much less corruption. Billions of dollars are on the line. Anywhere from tens of thousands of lives to hundreds of millions of lives are at stake.
If there is even one flaw in the research, one flaw in the data, one error that is waiting to be discovered, you can bet that it WILL be discovered eventually.
There is a legion of lawyers out there who dine at three Michelin star restaurants thanks to lawsuits filed against Big Pharma, as well as a legion of lawyers out there who fight against them (and also dine at the same restaurants).
I have often argued that the biggest, most stringent adherents to the scientific process work for Big Pharma, because they have the MOST to lose from not following the processes, either in letter OR in spirit.
I trust the scientists that work for Big Pharma more than, say, the scientists that inflate that climate changey thingy. In fact, if I wanted to, I can get into the business of creating models that "predict" climate change. I am reasonably confident that I can make said models arrive at conclusions that satisfy everyone who pays me.
Can't do that with experimental drugs, at least not in America. Only RuZZia or China can cover up the results of drug trials (or in the case of PooTin and Sputnik-V, not even bother to do them).
Tenchusatsu |
