i agree in principal that oversight is needed, but the problem is that the "government" cannot be trusted.
more oversight means more bribery and corruption.
look at how they controlled HIV treatments, getting rich off AZT that was killing people, not helping them.
this was the government and fauci in action.
IRS, DOJ, FBI, CIA, DEA, FDA, CDC...
all of these have been proven corrupt and while we know there are criminals throughout, there is little if any prosecution.
you can even add a layer of oversight on top of the oversight, and you would just get more corruption.
I agree with that. It's a double edged sword. My example is one of countless other examples that might disprove my point, but it is directly related to vaccines and regulations put forth by the government in order to protect people. Unfortunately, the government has also passed laws to protect the companies they're supposedly protecting the people from, which makes any protections for the people pointless. Which is why I am skeptical of taking a vaccine that has been rushed to market, with more safeguards in place for the companies rather than the people.
It's a fair position to take, especially with the idea of a new type of vaccine. I am certainly more likely to take the J&J variant as my risk category is vanishingly low, and I'd prefer to take something I understand. That said, for years the FDA had a strict safe AND effective standard, which was disastrous because drugs proved safe for one disease could not be used widely for another until proved effective for the new one, despite the established safety standard. We have generally moved passed that in exigent circumstances, but there is still a major issue in that the process is so onerous that only about six or so pharmaceutical companies can bring a product to market, which is a major driver of costs as it drives down competition.
Again, I don't agree with your point of view on it, but I don't think it is an unreasonable one to take.
In some regards you are correct. But we aren't talking about using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment, while saying there isn't enough known about the safety of the drug, which is what Health Canada tried to say. While there isn't much data on what effect it will have on Covid, there is decades of data on patient safety. We are talking about a brand new type of vaccine, on a type of virus that formulating a vaccine has never been successful.
To use my profession as an comparison, companies have built hundreds, even thousands of oil and gas sites, compressor stations, whatever else, with decades of engineering trial and error. That's where the safety data comes from. They already know safe operating pressures, what liquids and chemicals to use and the quantities/ratios. Before start up, though, there is still a testing procedure that still has to be performed. Just because they have 20 teams of engineers all over the country telling them everything will work, they still bring in a commissioning crew to make sure everything works as it is supposed to. And this is when they're building the same site they just built 6 months ago, just in a different location.
Now, we are building a water treatment facility to filter out selenium from river water that comes from a coal mine. I can't tell you what is so different about this treatment process compared to others, but the process they are using is not a common one. The amount of issues ans mistakes from engineering that have come up, has doubled the time frame of the project, the budget, bankrupted the original general contractor, and a new one was just hired. We aren't even done construction yet. The commissioning team lead has told us it isn't going to be a smooth ride when it comes to start up either. The engineering company is one of the countries biggest, who has built the countries largest oil sands mine, and currently building one of the world's largest LNG terminals in Kitimat, BC. They have have resources and man power to do what any other company can do, yet there are still issues.
So now because someone who has a PHD after their name told me the vaccine they made in a year will be safe for me, for years to come, with barely any testing, I'm a conspiracy theorist for being skeptical? These issues don't end because of the industry they are in, and I don't have to be a doctor to know that either.
www.reuters.com 
www.bbc.com 
www.ft.com 
www.france24.com
uk.news.yahoo.com
www.theatlantic.com 
penntoday.upenn.edu 
www.historyofvaccines.org 
www.japantimes.co.jp 
thefederalist.com 
