Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Stan said:

I still keep re-reading this and can't get over just how dense this statement is  

Like saying a top-class football manager presents themselves as an expert, then wonders why they're an expert on football. The very thing they've probably invested their life into through their passion for it.

I think it's a bizarre statement because science isn't a person  - science is a body of knowledge that is built from testing predictions about the world and then observing and learning from those predictions.

I don't think any scientist would claim that "science knows everything" because the very premise of science being a body of knowledge that grows as you continue to test hypotheses indicates that: 1.) scientists don't know everything; 2.) scientists not knowing everything drives science forward and keeps hypotheses coming, gets them tested, and observations are then reported. The body of knowledge grows constantly.

We should trust science because it's made up of centuries of work from experts throughout time and is based on real world tested hypotheses and observable findings from those tests. Does that mean it's perfect? No, absolutely not... and we know that scientific findings can change over time. But it seems weird that with all science has done for modern medicine... and the modern world in general... we sometimes pick and choose what we want to believe from the scientific experts.

We trust virologists when they present solutions to other viral infections. Why not COVID?

[Guest]

@Waylander if you think you know better than scientists why dont you debate one.  Then post it on here so we can all have a  laugh 

[RandoEFC+]

The right wing who call everyone who disagrees with them snowflakes once again doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics and Covid fan-fiction because wearing a mask and putting a needle in their arm for half a second is far too scary for them.

[Happy Blue]

2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

The right wing who call everyone who disagrees with them snowflakes once again doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics and Covid fan-fiction because wearing a mask and putting a needle in their arm for half a second is far too scary for them.

Hang on, one minute i'm a steroid head and now i'm scared of needles, which is it?   ..typical left winger

[RandoEFC+]

18 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Hang on, one minute i'm a steroid head and now i'm scared of needles, which is it?   ..typical left winger

I didn't say anything about steroids did I? And I was talking about the Fox News morons anyway, not you. No offence but we've gone way past the point of there being any point in engaging with you on any of this stuff. 

[Happy Blue]

6 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I didn't say anything about steroids did I? And I was talking about the Fox News morons anyway, not you. No offence but we've gone way past the point of there being any point in engaging with you on any of this stuff. 

No worry's chap, our views are too different, i can respect that,  have a pleasant evening 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

The right wing who call everyone who disagrees with them snowflakes once again doing Olympic-level mental gymnastics and Covid fan-fiction because wearing a mask and putting a needle in their arm for half a second is far too scary for them.

What did they say?

[Beelzebub]

" Philosophy has been even ahaed of science. Many of the great hypothesis were put forth by philosophers, but they remain only ideas when not supported by evidence. When evidence is found science appropriates it as it's own achievement "

- Bertrand Russell

[Harry]

1 hour ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I think it's a bizarre statement because science isn't a person  - science is a body of knowledge that is built from testing predictions about the world and then observing and learning from those predictions.

I don't think any scientist would claim that "science knows everything" because the very premise of science being a body of knowledge that grows as you continue to test hypotheses indicates that: 1.) scientists don't know everything; 2.) scientists not knowing everything drives science forward and keeps hypotheses coming, gets them tested, and observations are then reported. The body of knowledge grows constantly.

We should trust science because it's made up of centuries of work from experts throughout time and is based on real world tested hypotheses and observable findings from those tests. Does that mean it's perfect? No, absolutely not... and we know that scientific findings can change over time. But it seems weird that with all science has done for modern medicine... and the modern world in general... we sometimes pick and choose what we want to believe from the scientific experts.

We trust virologists when they present solutions to other viral infections. Why not COVID?

I fully support your defence of science, but whilst we're on the subject of its flaws, some criticisms I have of science and expertise:

1. The biggest flaw of science is the way it gets written up by the media. Dramatizing it, exaggerating the level of certainty of uncertainty. "May cause" gets presented as "probably does cause". And then secondary reporting on the report by cable news and agenda driven outlets amplifies the inaccuracies.

2. Experts in a particular field can be biased towards the importance of their field in a complex multi variate situation such as a pandemic. 

3. Universities, and the pressure they're under to churn out research results in some shite getting published because jobs are on the line.

4. Similar to 3, the body of knowledge is affected by confirmation bias. For example climate change becomes a point of investigation of every facet of life (E.g global bird population). Numerous papers with a hypothesis that is "climate change may explain change in this particular system". I think this does result in some incorrect conclusions at times. Correlation is not causation. For example the conclusion may be that a certain observed change is caused (or may be caused) by climate change however in fact it may just be correlated, and the actual cause may just be increasing global population (which itself causes climate change). Most likely the published science will be properly inconclusive but the media reporting will go a step further than the paper itself.

5. Its absolutely possible to follow the science but still make incorrect (or at the very least questionable) decisions.

I think those are fair criticisms. However science is far more right than wrong, and a bigger problem is the exploitation of the uncertainty by bad actors (on both sides), such as the type that make dodgy YouTube clips that anti vaxxers latch on to or that exaggerate things to keep the Greenies at maximum passion.

 

 

[Guest]

@Harry the scientific method is still the best we have. And its supposed to be in a way that should mean that bias wont affect it. Sure scientists get things wrong. And no scientist would say that just because there is a consensus that something is true it definitely is. However you can be fairly certain that if there is a huge scientific consensus on something. Eg that people should vaccinate or that humans are causing climate change. That there is alot  more reasons than not that it is true with our current knowledge. Thats not to say it is definitely true. But certainly it's very unlikely that someone who isnt a scientist is going to be able to make a good argument that it isnt. In fact it quite often shows as I've never heard an argument from an anti vaxer or climate change denier that hasn't already been debunked. In fact a lot of their arguments are embarrassing and can be beaten with common sense 

[Harry]

5 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Harry the scientific method is still the best we have. And its supposed to be in a way that should mean that bias wont affect it. Sure scientists get things wrong. And no scientist would say that just because there is a consensus that something is true it definitely is. However you can be fairly certain that if there is a huge scientific consensus on something. Eg that people should vaccinate or that humans are causing climate change. That there is alot  more reasons than not that it is true with our current knowledge. Thats not to say it is definitely true. But certainly it's very unlikely that someone who isnt a scientist is going to be able to make a good argument that it isnt. In fact it quite often shows as I've never heard an argument from an anti vaxer or climate change denier that hasn't already been debunked. In fact a lot of their arguments are embarrassing and can be beaten with common sense 

I'm fully onboard with the science of vaccination and climate change and generally everything else. However I can also spot BS within science.

I've seen science manipulated for political purposes during the pandemic. For example in Australia there's an organisation called OzSage who are based on the UK independent Sage. This is comprised of epidemiologists, economists and other specialties and has been characterised by dishonesty, with ideology coming first and data/science second. They produce modelling designed to generate hysteria to apply political pressure towards extending lockdowns and  continued border closures. None of their work would get published in a journal but it gets published in the newspapers to keep hysteria high.

Everyone should think critically when presented with information.

[Beelzebub]

Agree with Harry. There is also data fishing or dredging. There are plenty of research that contradict each other, they create hypothesis from whatever result they find which is opposite of actual science where you prove your hypothesis by results from experimenting, which is difficult and can't be done regularly.

They pump out papers that are vague, poorly researched just to keep up with the academic requirements.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Harry said:

I'm fully onboard with the science of vaccination and climate change and generally everything else. However I can also spot BS within science.

I've seen science manipulated for political purposes during the pandemic. For example in Australia there's an organisation called OzSage who are based on the UK independent Sage. This is comprised of epidemiologists, economists and other specialties and has been characterised by dishonesty, with ideology coming first and data/science second. They produce modelling designed to generate hysteria to apply political pressure towards extending lockdowns and  continued border closures. None of their work would get published in a journal but it gets published in the newspapers to keep hysteria high.

Everyone should think critically when presented with information.

Ow I agree. Thats because they are an organisation that is not necessarily always concerned with science as much as others. However like I said as soon as something has a mass consensus I think its unlikely that anybody could give a reasonable reason not to believe it. I mean the scientific consensus on climate change is huge, the scientific consensus on vaccines is huge. Like i said (and I'm emphasising this) that's not to say it is definitely true. And it should still be researched and questioned. But there isnt a good reason not to believe it unless you are a scientist and have another theory 

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Khan of TF365 said:

Agree with Harry. There is also data fishing or dredging. There are plenty of research that contradict each other, they create hypothesis from whatever result they find which is opposite of actual science where you prove your hypothesis by results from experimenting, which is difficult and can't be done regularly.

They pump out papers that are vague, poorly researched just to keep up with the academic requirements.

I don't think thats true on a whole. Most scientists are dedicated to science and using the scientific method. Like I said if a majority of scientists say something there is no reason for you to  not believe it unless you are a scientist yourself and have your own theory. Obviously there maybe bias when conducting experiments. But that's why there are pier reviews.  Other scientists try to prove it wrong who are independent. Something doesnt get to the level of being taught in schools or medicine or treatment doesn't get used on the nhs without hard evidence. In fact the nhs doesnt use a lot of treatments in mental health because of lack of research.

 

Just reread your post. Sorry were you referring to organisations like sage not scientists in general?

Edited November 16, 2021 by Guest

[Beelzebub]

12 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I don't think thats true on a whole. Most scientists are dedicated to science and using the scientific method. Like I said if a majority of scientists say something there is no reason for you to  not believe it unless you are a scientist yourself and have your own theory. Obviously there maybe bias when conducting experiments. But that's why there are pier reviews.  Other scientists try to prove it wrong who are independent. Something doesnt get to the level of being taught in schools or medicine or treatment doesn't get used on the nhs without hard evidence. In fact the nhs doesnt use a lot of treatments in mental health because of lack of research.

 

Just reread your post. Sorry were you referring to organisations like sage not scientists in general?

Yes people who churn out faulty research for vested interest. There are like average 5-6 research papers published in a day. It's science not podcasting, it's a time consuming and thoughtful procedure. Obviously some of it is dodgy.

[nudge+]

My postgrad research supervisor, a highly-rated professor with a leading role in the field, has literally manipulated my research study design to ensure that the results supported his theory that he was publishing at the time that was the point where I decided to nope the fuck out of academia after getting my degree.

Scientific method itself is great, is just that there's a lot of politics and infighting for money, titles and positions in academia. Peer review is also a deeply flawed process that is also heavily affected by the aforementioned politics. That said, it's still the best we have. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, nudge said:

My postgrad research supervisor, a highly-rated professor with a leading role in the field, has literally manipulated my research study design to ensure that the results supported his theory that he was publishing at the time that was the point where I decided to nope the fuck out of academia after getting my degree.

Scientific method itself is great, is just that there's a lot of politics and infighting for money, titles and positions in academia. Peer review is also a deeply flawed process that is also heavily affected by the aforementioned politics. That said, it's still the best we have. 

If something is pier reviewed by lots of scientists. Hundreds or even thousands though wouldn't it be safe to say its unlikely they are all lying? I mean if there is a mass scientific consensus like there is with climate change for example?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Khan of TF365 said:

Yes people who churn out faulty research for vested interest. There are like average 5-6 research papers published in a day. It's science not podcasting, it's a time consuming and thoughtful procedure. Obviously some of it is dodgy.

I kind of know what you mean. Sometimes papers will report a study. But it will only be one study. It's not a scientific consensus. Papers do it quite often. Is that what you mean?

[nudge+]

32 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

If something is pier reviewed by lots of scientists. Hundreds or even thousands though wouldn't it be safe to say its unlikely they are all lying? I mean if there is a mass scientific consensus like there is with climate change for example?

I think you misunderstand what peer review is - it's just a process used to decide if a specific study paper is suitable for publishing; it doesn't have anything to do with consensus, it doesn't check if the results are correct, it simply filters out complete nonsense and ensures that minimum requirements were followed. It's only there to provide minimum standards, not to guarantee that the studies are trustworthy. To describe the actual process to you, this is how it happens in general: a researcher writes a paper and submits it for publishing. The editor in chief of the journal gives the manuscript to 2-3 reviewers who are qualified in a relevant field. The reviewers read the manuscript and give their recommendation - either for rejection, revision, or publishing. The author of the research paper then does any corrections if needed for revision, and the paper is published. That's it. The reviewers don't even have to agree with the conclusions of the paper, they simply conduct a very basic quality check.

Anyway, you're right that if there's a huge body of research supporting a specific theory, then it's most likely to be right. As for climate change, it's important to understand that it is first and foremost a political issue rather than a scientific one. There's a strong scientific consensus that the climate is warming, that human activities have contributed a lot to it, and that continuing emissions will likely have a huge global impact in the future. Everything else is literally politics.

[Happy Blue]

20 hours ago, Stan said:

Just heard on the news from a professor/scientific expert that the risk of heart inflammation is much lower than first thought, including for younger people/children as well as adults.

 

Just to reiterate, this was heard from a scientific expert

These scientific experts are saying something different?   

 

France advises against Moderna for under-30s over rare heart risk

French health authorities advised against use of the Moderna COVID jab for people under 30 late yesterday, after a nation-wide study confirmed a risk of cardiac inflammation associated with mRNA vaccines.

The study from Epi-Phare, an independent medicines safety research group that works closely with the French government, confirmed previous findings

It looked at all people in France aged 12 to 50 who were hospitalized for myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) or pericarditis (inflammation of the tissue surrounding the heart) between May 15 and August 31 of this year.

Results showed that vaccines from both Pfizer and Moderna increase the risk of these illnesses within seven days of vaccination.

The risk, is higher in men under 30 years old and particularly after a second dose of the Moderna vaccine, which the study found

[Guest]

5 hours ago, nudge said:

I think you misunderstand what peer review is - it's just a process used to decide if a specific study paper is suitable for publishing; it doesn't have anything to do with consensus, it doesn't check if the results are correct, it simply filters out complete nonsense and ensures that minimum requirements were followed. It's only there to provide minimum standards, not to guarantee that the studies are trustworthy. To describe the actual process to you, this is how it happens in general: a researcher writes a paper and submits it for publishing. The editor in chief of the journal gives the manuscript to 2-3 reviewers who are qualified in a relevant field. The reviewers read the manuscript and give their recommendation - either for rejection, revision, or publishing. The author of the research paper then does any corrections if needed for revision, and the paper is published. That's it. The reviewers don't even have to agree with the conclusions of the paper, they simply conduct a very basic quality check.

Anyway, you're right that if there's a huge body of research supporting a specific theory, then it's most likely to be right. As for climate change, it's important to understand that it is first and foremost a political issue rather than a scientific one. There's a strong scientific consensus that the climate is warming, that human activities have contributed a lot to it, and that continuing emissions will likely have a huge global impact in the future. Everything else is literally politics.

I didnt know that about pier review actually. So how do we get to the level of when something is taught is schools? How is it decided what will be taught in science in schools and further education? Does it have to get to a mass scientific consensus before it is? And how do we get to the level where a drug or medical practise is used by doctors?  I mean how do we know that pharmaceutical companies are being honest and that vaccines are safe? 

[nudge+]

22 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I didnt know that about pier review actually. So how do we get to the level of when something is taught is schools? How is it decided what will be taught in science in schools and further education? Does it have to get to a mass scientific consensus before it is? And how do we get to the level where a drug or medical practise is used by doctors?  I mean how do we know that pharmaceutical companies are being honest and that vaccines are safe? 

Yes, the stuff that makes it into textbooks is usually something that has been tested and retested with the same results and conclusions for countless times by countless researchers, meaning that the evidence is clear and convincing - it usually takes at least a decade or two, often even longer; although it obviously varies depending on the field and the type of findings. You don't often get completely new, breakthrough stuff though, it's usually just small revisions or new additions expanding the existing body of knowledge. 

Pharmaceutical research is highly regulated and has strict safety protocols, understandably. The process might vary from country to country, but in general, it starts when pharma researchers in lab settings discover that a certain compound has specific properties that could be promising in treating some disease. They then do a lot of testing in the lab, both in vitro (test tubes, petri dishes) and in vivo (testing on various animals). This stage of testing is called pre-clinical trials and mostly preocupies with toxicity and basic safety profile. Once they have enough data, they submit their application to the national regulatory authority, asking for permission to do clinical trials. If the permission is granted, the next step is clinical trials, where the new drug gets tested on humans. Clinical trials have three phases - in Phase One they use a small amount of volunteers to  assess safety - basically, how the drug affects the body, how is it metabolised, what are the side effects. If Phase 1 provides acceptable safety data, the trial moves to Phase 2 - here, the main goal is to test efficacy, so it's usually a controlled study on a larger sample split into two groups, where one is given the drug while the other one is given the placebo, in order to assess how effective the drug is. At the same time, safety and side effects are being monitored and added to the data from Phase 1. If this phase provides acceptable results, then the trial moves into Phase 3 - here, you want to have as many volunteers as possible, preferably of different ages, races, gender, etc. to get even more information on safety and effectiveness for different population, and also discover potential long-term or less common but serious side effects that might have not been noticed in previous stages due to time constraints and small samples of participants. If Phase 3 is successful, the pharma company can apply for the approval and provide the regulatory authority all the data they collected during both pre-clinical and clinical trials. If the drug gets approved after this review, the company can start manufacturing and then selling the new drug. After that, they are still required to monitor safety and effectiveness of the drug and report regularly to the regulatory authorities.

As for your last question, well, you can't know for sure if the pharmaceutical company is completely honest; in fact most of them have history of various shady practices including manipulating and straightout falsifying data in the past. The strict approval procedures and multiple reviews by independent groups are there in place to ensure that there's as little room for that as possible, but it still can and does happen from time to time. Once the drug/vaccine is approved and widely used, you get a lot of real-world data and don't have to be reliant solely on the information provided by the pharmaceutical company. Also, it's obviously a huge business with a lot of money involved, and widespread deaths due to an unsafe drug or vaccine is surely bad for business, so if  anything, that should be an impetus for the company not to release an unsafe drug/vaccine into circulation  

 

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, nudge said:

Yes, the stuff that makes it into textbooks is usually something that has been tested and retested with the same results and conclusions for countless times by countless researchers, meaning that the evidence is clear and convincing - it usually takes at least a decade or two, often even longer; although it obviously varies depending on the field and the type of findings. You don't often get completely new, breakthrough stuff though, it's usually just small revisions or new additions expanding the existing body of knowledge. 

Pharmaceutical research is highly regulated and has strict safety protocols, understandably. The process might vary from country to country, but in general, it starts when pharma researchers in lab settings discover that a certain compound has specific properties that could be promising in treating some disease. They then do a lot of testing in the lab, both in vitro (test tubes, petri dishes) and in vivo (testing on various animals). This stage of testing is called pre-clinical trials and mostly preocupies with toxicity and basic safety profile. Once they have enough data, they submit their application to the national regulatory authority, asking for permission to do clinical trials. If the permission is granted, the next step is clinical trials, where the new drug gets tested on humans. Clinical trials have three phases - in Phase One they use a small amount of volunteers to  assess safety - basically, how the drug affects the body, how is it metabolised, what are the side effects. If Phase 1 provides acceptable safety data, the trial moves to Phase 2 - here, the main goal is to test efficacy, so it's usually a controlled study on a larger sample split into two groups, where one is given the drug while the other one is given the placebo, in order to assess how effective the drug is. At the same time, safety and side effects are being monitored and added to the data from Phase 1. If this phase provides acceptable results, then the trial moves into Phase 3 - here, you want to have as many volunteers as possible, preferably of different ages, races, gender, etc. to get even more information on safety and effectiveness for different population, and also discover potential long-term or less common but serious side effects that might have not been noticed in previous stages due to time constraints and small samples of participants. If Phase 3 is successful, the pharma company can apply for the approval and provide the regulatory authority all the data they collected during both pre-clinical and clinical trials. If the drug gets approved after this review, the company can start manufacturing and then selling the new drug. After that, they are still required to monitor safety and effectiveness of the drug and report regularly to the regulatory authorities.

As for your last question, well, you can't know for sure if the pharmaceutical company is completely honest; in fact most of them have history of various shady practices including manipulating and straightout falsifying data in the past. The strict approval procedures and multiple reviews by independent groups are there in place to ensure that there's as little room for that as possible, but it still can and does happen from time to time. Once the drug/vaccine is approved and widely used, you get a lot of real-world data and don't have to be reliant solely on the information provided by the pharmaceutical company. Also, it's obviously a huge business with a lot of money involved, and widespread deaths due to an unsafe drug or vaccine is surely bad for business, so if  anything, that should be an impetus for the company not to release an unsafe drug/vaccine into circulation  

 

I've thought the philosophical thought of occams razor is right. That you go on the most simplest and most likely explanation. Its seems to me that you are saying that we dont know for certain that certain scientific theories are right.  But they are the  more likely explanation at the time. Things like climate change denial and anti vax take so much twisting and require so many people to be lying on such a mass scale that it's more likely that the the deniers are wrong. And if they are right. Its luck more than anything 

Science denialism isnt about people having logical reasons most of the time though I dont think.  These people trust experts 99% of the time without question. Its just that 1% where they hear something they dont like and they cant except it. I dont like to generalise but in my experience (and I may be wrong) these people do tend to be more right wing alot of the time 

[nudge+]

1 minute ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I've thought the philosophical thought of occams razor is right. That you go on the most simplest and most likely explanation. Its seems to me that you are saying that we dont know for certain that certain scientific theories are right.  But they are the  more likely explanation at the time. Things like climate change denial and anti vax take so much twisting and require so many people to be lying on such a mass scale that it's more likely that the the deniers are wrong. And if they are right. Its luck more than anything 

Science denialism isnt about people having logical reasons most of the time though I dont think.  These people trust experts 99% of the time without question. Its just that 1% where they hear something they dont like and they cant except it. I dont like to generalise but in my experience (and I may be wrong) these people do tend to be more right wing alot of the time 

That is exactly the case. A scientific theory that is currently best at explaining a specific aspect of the natural world is rightfully accepted as true until there's an even better one that explains it even better, and the old one then gets replaced, corrected or expanded by a new one. Like heliocentric model of the universe replaced the geocentric model, and then hundred of years later became obsolete itself when new discoveries were made. Or like classic mechanics has been extended by relativistic and quantum mechanics. 

[Happy Blue]

1 hour ago, nudge said:

Yes, the stuff that makes it into textbooks is usually something that has been tested and retested with the same results and conclusions for countless times by countless researchers, meaning that the evidence is clear and convincing - it usually takes at least a decade or two, often even longer; although it obviously varies depending on the field and the type of findings. You don't often get completely new, breakthrough stuff though, it's usually just small revisions or new additions expanding the existing body of knowledge. 

Pharmaceutical research is highly regulated and has strict safety protocols, understandably. The process might vary from country to country, but in general, it starts when pharma researchers in lab settings discover that a certain compound has specific properties that could be promising in treating some disease. They then do a lot of testing in the lab, both in vitro (test tubes, petri dishes) and in vivo (testing on various animals). This stage of testing is called pre-clinical trials and mostly preocupies with toxicity and basic safety profile. Once they have enough data, they submit their application to the national regulatory authority, asking for permission to do clinical trials. If the permission is granted, the next step is clinical trials, where the new drug gets tested on humans. Clinical trials have three phases - in Phase One they use a small amount of volunteers to  assess safety - basically, how the drug affects the body, how is it metabolised, what are the side effects. If Phase 1 provides acceptable safety data, the trial moves to Phase 2 - here, the main goal is to test efficacy, so it's usually a controlled study on a larger sample split into two groups, where one is given the drug while the other one is given the placebo, in order to assess how effective the drug is. At the same time, safety and side effects are being monitored and added to the data from Phase 1. If this phase provides acceptable results, then the trial moves into Phase 3 - here, you want to have as many volunteers as possible, preferably of different ages, races, gender, etc. to get even more information on safety and effectiveness for different population, and also discover potential long-term or less common but serious side effects that might have not been noticed in previous stages due to time constraints and small samples of participants. If Phase 3 is successful, the pharma company can apply for the approval and provide the regulatory authority all the data they collected during both pre-clinical and clinical trials. If the drug gets approved after this review, the company can start manufacturing and then selling the new drug. After that, they are still required to monitor safety and effectiveness of the drug and report regularly to the regulatory authorities.

As for your last question, well, you can't know for sure if the pharmaceutical company is completely honest; in fact most of them have history of various shady practices including manipulating and straight out falsifying data in the past. The strict approval procedures and multiple reviews by independent groups are there in place to ensure that there's as little room for that as possible, but it still can and does happen from time to time. Once the drug/vaccine is approved and widely used, you get a lot of real-world data and don't have to be reliant solely on the information provided by the pharmaceutical company. Also, it's obviously a huge business with a lot of money involved, and widespread deaths due to an unsafe drug or vaccine is surely bad for business, so if  anything, that should be an impetus for the company not to release an unsafe drug/vaccine into circulation  

 

Thanks Nudge, i was looking for a new book to read over Christmas, i will just read this one instead    ..good information, nice balanced view