@Cultured_Bogan said in [Corona impact on NRL\.\.\.?](/post/1149273) said:
As funny as watching a Type 1 diabetic rage against big Pharma while jabbing themselves with their synthetic insulin.
I've mentioned this before, I work in the drug industry; all the conspiracy stuff is crap.
In decades gone by, Pharma companies were certainly more shady, as much as any other company in 1970 or 1980 trying to get an edge and maybe not having what we would now consider a sufficient ethical standard or moral code. No different from share traders or big industry polluters or cigarette companies or shoe manufacturers. But not nowadays, the rules are too strict and the penalties are too high for Pharma to systematically cheat, and it's too easy to be found out.
Case in point - I can tell you for FACT that I cannot spend USD 10 on US doctors without having to disclose it to the US authorities. It's called the Sunshine Act, active since 2010, and it means that if I buy a doctor or a nurse a sandwich and a coffee in the US, I have to disclose it to the authorities. I can be fired if I fail to do this.
But no, the numpties want to suggest there's some Big Pharma conspiracy. Pharma are certainly out there to make money, no doubt, but they also happen to improve very very many lives whilst they do that. You can't necessarily say the same thing about banks, construction companies, insurance brokers, share traders, phone manufacturers etc. If not Pharma, don't expect the governments to shell out an appropriate budget to discover new drugs, they just don't do it.
So with vaccines, if they were a sham or there was significant risk, we'd hear about it. There are too many people involved to keep such things a secret, even if "they" tried. There have literally been billions and billions of doses of flu vaccine given over the decades. It clearly has some positive impact, because we haven't seen a Spanish Flu-type influenza again and the burden of flu on society is decreased overall, even if not eradicated (which some people confuse, the difference between eradicating something and attenuating it).
There is a very very large amount of money and time invested in ensuring drugs are safe before they go to market. It is not perfect, but it is as good a scientific system as we have, and the industry is always trying to improve the methodology. Personally, myself and everyone in my company and my role, we don't get any kind of different compensation if a drug works or does not work. We are only paid to deliver the research, we have no upside if the drug ends up successful, apart from personal satisfaction. I therefore have no skin in the game apart from ensuring I do a good job.
