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

[Angelo]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

[thebigfella]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

Reaching there

[dublin7]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission

Your obsession with "optics" as you put it only shows how close minded you are. If you looked past the lazy headlines of the sale of the shares you'd see the company and CEO did nothing illegal or wrong.

You occasionally see park rangers killing deer in the phoenix park and the "optics" of that are very bad. However if you look into why they do it you'll see it's to protect other species in the park and ensure the deer population doesn't get out of control.

[Angelo]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

Reaching there

If you have a tenuous grasp of the English language I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating it.

Professional bodies have ethical guidelines that actively try to stop their members actions being open to scrutiny.


Optics
(typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised


A CEO of a billion dollar pharma company signing a contract that allows him to sell his shares once they reach a certain price in the middle of a pandemic when they are developing a vaccine gives a serious conflict of interest and the optics of it are utterly terrible.

As far as industries go as well, few are as dirty as big pharma.

For those reasons I'd be very wary.

[Angelo]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission

It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.

A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.

Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.

[dublin7]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission

It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.

A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.

Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.

The story hasn't gained traction. It was a tabloid headline for one day and then pretty much disappeared after the details of the transaction were revealed. Only conspiracy nuts like yourself are trying to make it into something it's not.

Do you know how the stock market works? People invest in companies in the hopes of making money.  Big Pharma is a potential gold mine with all the companies working on vaccines.

The share price has gone down since the original press release. People jumped on the shares when the original announcement was made but when they realised a vaccine hadn't been actually approved but was still in trial stages the demand and share price dropped. People buying shares hoping for a dramatic increase in their value realised that wasn't going to happen got impatient and started selling their shares.

Should the CEO be blamed for the optics of the Pfizer share price now dropping?

[dublin7]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

[Angelo]

Optics are for Sun readers.

Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.

Maybe this is the problem.

Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.

So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.

Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.

Lol at that first sentence.

Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid.  Big headline but no substance.  Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence.  Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.

The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this.  You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.

The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.

If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.

Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.

Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?

Solicitors and Accountants

Post a link

Here's an example.

https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf

4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised

As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission

It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.

A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.

Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.

The story hasn't gained traction. It was a tabloid headline for one day and then pretty much disappeared after the details of the transaction were revealed. Only conspiracy nuts like yourself are trying to make it into something it's not.

Do you know how the stock market works? People invest in companies in the hopes of making money.  Big Pharma is a potential gold mine with all the companies working on vaccines.

The share price has gone down since the original press release. People jumped on the shares when the original announcement was made but when they realised a vaccine hadn't been actually approved but was still in trial stages the demand and share price dropped. People buying shares hoping for a dramatic increase in their value realised that wasn't going to happen got impatient and started selling their shares.

Should the CEO be blamed for the optics of the Pfizer share price now dropping?

It wasn't a tabloid headline. It wasn't tabloids that reported on it.

You shouldn't be asking me if I know how things work, you should be questioning your own knowledge and naivety.

It absolutely reeks of terrible corporate governance, the board would have signed off on that contract and I will repeat again. A contract signed in the middle of a pandemic where a vaccine is currently being developed that enriches the CEO if it's approved. And you can't see the conflict of interest in getting this to market in record time? You're telling me you can't see anything wrong with that. Anything that could compromise or conflict any judgement calls.

The optics of it are terrible.

[Angelo]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

[Milltown Row2]

So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

[Angelo]

So fecking what!!

As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up

You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.

I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.

[trueblue1234]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.

Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.

[Angelo]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.

Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.

Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.

If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.

You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine

[Franko]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine.  They don't certify the vaccine for use.  So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing.  But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this?  If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.

[Angelo]

Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market

How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.

I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.

You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.

1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine.  They don't certify the vaccine for use.  So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing.  But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this?  If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.

You are working off blind faith, you seem to be some sort of vaccine fascist that wants everyone to take the vaccine. There are massive question marks over it. Only last week or the week before we have a a Big Pharma company settling over side effects of a Swine Flu vaccine. I'm wary and sceptical of this and would not be willing to take this vaccine on the grounds that it was rushed through in an unprecedented timeline. That should prompt concerns in any rational-minded thinker.

So what if a guy made money from this? Eh, self-interest. He signed a contract DURING the pandemic that would have allowed him to profit heavily from the vaccine hitting the market first and you can't see how it could compromise decision making? Pfizer have a very unscrupulous past. There's an article above from 2009 where they were hit with a record $2bn fine for mispromoting a drug they made and paying kickbacks to doctors so the company in question don't merely have issues in the optics of this, they also have issues in their past transgressions.

Big Pharma is about as seedy an industry as you can find.

Why are people like you, who know absolutley nothing about the vaccine and its potential consequences, so adamant that people risk their health and go and get it.