you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Of course Big Pharma cannot be fully trusted. But who will regulate them?

why trust their vaccine then? Why give them immunity for it?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

It's not just their vaccine, as the resarch for vaccines developed world-wide. Collaboration between virologists and other medical scientists helped develop the vaccines. We can trust that this collaboration, the science behind is, and the relative successes of 6.6 billion doses already administered and previously tested quite thoroughly. My note that Big Pharma cannot be fully trusted refers to other problems with Big Pharma that are unrelated to the vaccine, which is an international project. I did not say that they cannot be trusted on all matters. It would also be really foolish of them to screw up the arrangments for the vaccine.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They are fools, and they've been screwing up since Day One.

There will be a subtle comeuppance, when their plans come to fruition only for their successes to be used as fodder against them. I don't trust Big Pharma to wipe its own ass, let alone work on some international project that is supposed to be democratic!

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

do you think it would be ok to take away their immunity, since the vaccine is so safe?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Immunity from prosecution is not the main problem. It was merely to allow for a quick turn-around of the vaccines and tests, without the worry of litigation, particularly in the US, where anyone could have challeged the process, shutting it down, only for political reasons. Oxford U. did not have to worry about this. Big Pharma is however not immune from serious challenges, if especially there are any serious side effects. For example, Oxford's AstraZenica was pulled form some of the markets. Propaganda websites focus on this immunity issue, but it's not what anyone worries about in the present case. If there are serious side effects, the value of the research, development and manufacturing investments will drop exponentially. But that's not happened in the US. There is a much bigger legal explanation about the importance of the initial immunity from prosecution clause, but it would take too long to write here. It's essentially a nothing burger. There are controls in place - in the market - to stop a vaccine distribution if there are serious side effects.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

is that a no

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

it's a no, until next year or the year after, while research is in process.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

maybe people should wait till then to get the vaccine

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I explained that the market keeps Big Pharma's vaccines in check. If there are problems, the vaccine is pulled, as has happend in some countries for AstraZeneca. The immunity clause merely helps them avoid frivolous lawsuits.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Question.... do you have stock in these vax companies? I notice that a lot of degenerates promotign these vaccines always are shareholders.

[–]Jesus 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You mean a bunch of Zionist Jews created these vaccines for a promised vaccine revolution for a corona virus pandemic they drilled for 6 months before?