Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[mackers]

They do have a hypothesis of why the half dose is more effective but at the time this was announced there was wasn't enough evidence or data to confirm that hypothesis - hence why further trials are being carried out and more data collected. It's not accurate to say they don't have a f**king clue.

It's all gone quiet regarding the authorisation of the Oxford vaccine. Clearly authorisation will not be rushed through like the Pfizer one for obvious reasons.  Will they be sent back to do further trials on the half dose/full dose regime before authorisation or will they be authorised for the full dose/full dose regime with 62% efficacy?

[dublin7]

Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!

Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.

The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.

The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm

My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.

You should pay more attention.

Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.

Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.

I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.

So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.

There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.

You are not a source.

I've provided the links to all of the above. It just suits some people to ignore that.

You left out the evil CEOs this time. Are you now happy to admit then that the Pfizer CEO isn't corrupt as you suggested previously for the completely legal arrangement he made for the sale of his shares?

[Angelo]

Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!

Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.

The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.

The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm

My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.

You should pay more attention.

Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.

Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.

I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.

So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.

There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.

You are not a source.

I've provided the links to all of the above. It just suits some people to ignore that.

You left out the evil CEOs this time. Are you now happy to admit then that the Pfizer CEO isn't corrupt as you suggested previously for the completely legal arrangement he made for the sale of his shares?

Absolutely not. What on earth has came to light since then that could change that?

The optics of it absolutely stink. What on earth do you think might have change my mind. The board of a big pharma company sign off on agreement midway through the pandemic that enriches its CEO if their shares reach a certain price. They then push their vaccine through to get first to market and the share price reaches that level the day it is announced.

It is shocking corporate governance and it undermines any confidence people who would be wary of the vaccine might have.

You really should do some research on the business practices of Pfizer. They have show disregard to the public's heatlh time and time again in the order of increasing profits and wealth.

[Rossfan]

EMA have provisionally approved the Pfizer one.
Vaccinations to get underway next week.

[Angelo]

Pfizer would never do anything wrong or not in the public's interest.

Pfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.

In a blow to its reputation in the eyes of doctors and patients, Pfizer pleaded guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra, withdrawn from the market in 2004, by promoting the drug for uses that were not approved by medical regulators.

The New York-based company also settled civil allegations concerning improper payments to doctors who prescribed nine other pharmaceutical products, although it continues to deny these charges

PHARMACEUTICAL GIANT PFIZER has been fined a record £84.2 million for charging
"excessive and unfair" prices for an anti-epilepsy drug in the UK.

The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that prices for phenytoin sodium capsules increased by 2,600% overnight after the medicine was deliberately debranded in September 2012.

Despite claims from Pfizer that the drug was making a loss before it debranded, the CMA said that all such losses would have been recovered within two months of hiking the price.

The cost to the NHS for 100mg pack of the drug shot up from £2.83 to £67.50.

In 2012, the drug cost the NHS £2 million in total. In 2013, this rose to £50 million.

Pharmaceutical company Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer), based in New York, NY, has agreed to pay $23.85 million to resolve claims that it used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking three Pfizer drugs, in violation of the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today. 

When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible (collectively copays).  Congress included copay requirements in the Medicare program, in part, to encourage market forces to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs.  Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, a pharmaceutical company is prohibited from offering, directly or indirectly, any remuneration—which includes paying patients' copay obligations—to induce Medicare patients to purchase the company's drugs.   

As part of today's settlement, the government alleged that Pfizer used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copay obligations of Medicare patients taking three Pfizer drugs:  Sutent and Inlyta, which both treat renal cell carcinoma, and Tikosyn, which treats arrhythmia in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter.  The government alleged that, in order to generate revenue, and instead of giving Sutent and Inlyta to Medicare patients who met the financial qualifications of Pfizer's existing free drug program, Pfizer used a third-party specialty pharmacy to transition certain patients to the foundation, which covered the patients' Medicare copays.  Pfizer allegedly made donations to the foundation to enable it to cover the copays of these patients and received confirmation from the foundation, via the specialty pharmacy, that the foundation funded the copays. 

There's one thing Pfizer and Big Pharma companies care about and that's money. It overrides any concern for the wellbeing of the general public and there is plenty of precedent there.

So there is reason for people to be both sceptical and cynical to big pharma, particularly around the rolling out of a vaccine in an unprecedented time period with a massive public will to approve.

[Tony Baloney]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

[Angelo]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

[dublin7]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

[Angelo]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?

It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.

[dublin7]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?

It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.

The courts don't think they're doing anything illegal. It's you who are misleading people by giving out fake/false information. Why did you include this case in your argument? You clearly wanted everyone to believe Pfizer had been found guilty of acting illegally

You keep insisting that their vaccine is unsafe because it's rushed. This case has nothing to do with that and CMA did not raise any issues with the quality of Pfizer's products so it actually disproves your argument they produce unsafe products

[Tony Baloney]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?

It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.

If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.

[Angelo]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?

It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.

If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.

Will you take the vaccine?

[Rossfan]

Saw a cartoon somewhere-a young kid asking her mother what was the scar on her arm.
Mammy said it was from her smallpox vaccination. Kid asked why didnt I get one? Mammy said "Because it worked"

[Tony Baloney]

So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?

Unrelated to safety?
Excuse me???

Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!

FFS.

The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.

The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.

https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec


The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.

https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5

So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?

It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.

If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.

Will you take the vaccine?

Yes. I'm well down the list but I'll take it when I'm due to get it.

[Milltown Row2]

A definitive yes!

Good man TB