The language the article uses, is a bit inflammatory. It may well be correct, but the tone gives me pause.
Sounds like the author has an axe to grind.
Sounds like the author has an axe to grind.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/world/covid-vaccine-brazi...
Apart from that, it is hard to believe that any of the vaccine reports and clinical trials are unbiased. Unfortunately there are too many conflicts of interest and money on the table for any information to be taken at face value. The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction. And on that note, regardless of the final outcome for Sputnik V, at least there will be lessons learned for the future development of vaccines and increased scrutiny in their manufacturing process.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
It won't work because for every such group, there will be 10 groups with high conflict of interest that can counter any finding of your hypothetical group, and journals with conflict of interests will reject the findings of that group, but instead give high visibility to the reports of high-conflict of interest groups..
Quickly no one will dare to research the said topic.
I’m nagging, but we’ve gone to extraordinary lengths to set a precedent where pharmaceutical companies are relieved of the burden of demonstrating the safety of their products and also relieved of the risk of providing relief to anyone harmed by said products.
20 years later, emergency measures to protect Americans from terrorism are in effect today. I doubt Pfizer will be vulnerable to class-action suits ever again.