Replies

Right, so if there isn’t proof of testing it seems prudent to force the FDA to stop the use of the vaccine.

I read somewhere that Obama was heavily invested with the vaccine makes so I don’t expect anything to stop its widespread use. Don’t recall the source.

Right, so if there isn’t proof of testing it seems prudent to force the FDA to stop the use of the vaccine.

The FDA doesn't allow a drug to come to market without passing many established criteria. After thalidomide the FDA has been even more vigilant than many deem necessary because no one in charge wants to be identified as the one who let another such thing happen. The fact that the FDA has approved the flu vaccine in itself is pretty good evidence that adequate testing had been performed.

But even with testing and with any drug there are some things that may not show up among certain tiny populations of users for years. Claiming that if testing had been adequate all these side effects would have been uncovered. On a philosophical basis this no doubt is true, but such "testing" would have been impossible because it would have required a number of users equal to the size of the population in which the possible side effects or effects arising after use with some other drug or when taken under peculiar conditions have actually manifested themselves and over the same time course. If such testing were required, there is not a single drug that could ever possibly be approved for use, but in the end many orders of magnitude more people would have died, suffered, or been impaired because those drugs were not available. Looking at it in terms of maps, no map can possibly be completely accurate--if it were, it would be the size and detail of whatever it was mapping and, thus, impossible to use.