You would think after the Covid jab scam some people would understand we are being conned by Big Pharm. But no; these people continue to fall for the same BS
People in my age group had a 25-30 times greater chance of being admitted to the hospital unvaxxed vs. vaxxed. Earlier in the pandemic it was about 60 times greater, according to Alberta stats. These huge multiplers were the same for chances of being admitted to the ICU and dying. And the costif an ICU stay was about 100k, which was a lot of funds to spend on ignorant people who were unvaxxed.
I remember antivaxxers getting very upset when I suggested that insurances stop covering hospital care for the unvaxxed with COVID.
Made me realize they knew not taking the vaccine made them much more likely to get seriously ill.
Yes. Sacklers submitted data that Oxy was not addictive.
Please link it.
From Grok on X: Yes, Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies, like a 1980 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine, to claim low addiction risk, despite lacking empirical data relevant to OxyContin’s broad use. They also failed to disclose the limitations of these studies to the FDA, such as their focus on hospitalized patients under strict conditions, not outpatients. Purdue’s 1995 FDA approval for OxyContin relied on no long-term studies or addiction assessments, and the approved label included misleading claims, like delayed absorption reducing abuse liability, which were later revised in 2001 when evidence of addiction mounted. The company’s actions led to a 2007 guilty plea for misbranding OxyContin by downplaying its addictiveness, resulting in $634 million in fines.
Yes. Sacklers submitted data that Oxy was not addictive.
Please link it.
From Grok on X: Yes, Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies, like a 1980 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine, to claim low addiction risk, despite lacking empirical data relevant to OxyContin’s broad use. They also failed to disclose the limitations of these studies to the FDA, such as their focus on hospitalized patients under strict conditions, not outpatients. Purdue’s 1995 FDA approval for OxyContin relied on no long-term studies or addiction assessments, and the approved label included misleading claims, like delayed absorption reducing abuse liability, which were later revised in 2001 when evidence of addiction mounted. The company’s actions led to a 2007 guilty plea for misbranding OxyContin by downplaying its addictiveness, resulting in $634 million in fines.
Childhood vaccine rates have been dropping since 2020. Have autism rates fallen too?? Hmmmmmmm
Childhood vaccines have exploded since the late 1980s.
HAVE autism rates done the same?
The latest autism report was on data collected in 2022. When did he vaccine rates go down? How much did they go down?
Childhood vaxx's have exploded since the 1980's and childrens' wards of hospitals are no longer full of all the children who were suffering from infectious diseases that were eradicated with all those vaxx's. Ask any doc who has been practicing for 40 years. They will tell you the same story. They will also tell you RFK is nuts.
Childhood vaccine rates have been dropping since 2020. Have autism rates fallen too?? Hmmmmmmm
Childhood vaccines have exploded since the late 1980s.
HAVE autism rates done the same?
The latest autism report was on data collected in 2022. When did he vaccine rates go down? How much did they go down?
You cannot have a correlation one way and not the other. Autism rates MUST drop if vaccine rates are dropping assuming they are connected. If you can’t show that, your theory is debunked.
You cannot have a correlation one way and not the other. Autism rates MUST drop if vaccine rates are dropping assuming they are connected. If you can’t show that, your theory is debunked.
You cannot have a correlation one way and not the other. Autism rates MUST drop if vaccine rates are dropping assuming they are connected. If you can’t show that, your theory is debunked.
Do you run ? Tell the truth.
I’ve run 6 flat pace for 5 miles in the last 6 months. I’m not fast but not slow as molasses yet.
This post was edited 33 seconds after it was posted.
From Grok on X: Yes, Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies, like a 1980 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine, to claim low addiction risk, despite lacking empirical data relevant to OxyContin’s broad use. They also failed to disclose the limitations of these studies to the FDA, such as their focus on hospitalized patients under strict conditions, not outpatients. Purdue’s 1995 FDA approval for OxyContin relied on no long-term studies or addiction assessments, and the approved label included misleading claims, like delayed absorption reducing abuse liability, which were later revised in 2001 when evidence of addiction mounted. The company’s actions led to a 2007 guilty plea for misbranding OxyContin by downplaying its addictiveness, resulting in $634 million in fines.
Your own AI search undermines your claim. So this is not comparable because you can’t provide a link to peer reviewed studies showing no addictive link with OxyContin.
The fact that is being so smeared and has turned the sucker class against him is strong evidence that the powers that be know what is causing autism and wants it covered up.
From Grok on X: Yes, Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies, like a 1980 letter in The New England Journal of Medicine, to claim low addiction risk, despite lacking empirical data relevant to OxyContin’s broad use. They also failed to disclose the limitations of these studies to the FDA, such as their focus on hospitalized patients under strict conditions, not outpatients. Purdue’s 1995 FDA approval for OxyContin relied on no long-term studies or addiction assessments, and the approved label included misleading claims, like delayed absorption reducing abuse liability, which were later revised in 2001 when evidence of addiction mounted. The company’s actions led to a 2007 guilty plea for misbranding OxyContin by downplaying its addictiveness, resulting in $634 million in fines.
Your own AI search undermines your claim. So this is not comparable because you can’t provide a link to peer reviewed studies showing no addictive link with OxyContin.
Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies.
You can lead a fool to water...
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Your own AI search undermines your claim. So this is not comparable because you can’t provide a link to peer reviewed studies showing no addictive link with OxyContin.
Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies.
You can lead a fool to water...
And yet you won’t drink. Again, where are the peer reviewed studies that found no addictive link?
Purdue Pharma withheld data from the FDA that indicated OxyContin's addictive potential. A confidential Justice Department report from 2006, later revealed in 2018, found that Purdue was aware early on that OxyContin was being abused—crushed and snorted for its narcotic effects—but continued to market it as less addictive than other opioids. Company officials had received reports of abuse, including crushed pills, pharmacy thefts, and doctors selling prescriptions, yet hid this information from regulators and the public. Additionally, Purdue misrepresented scientific evidence. They cited outdated and narrow studies.
You can lead a fool to water...
And yet you won’t drink. Again, where are the peer reviewed studies that found no addictive link?
My God Mr. Ed. Dumbest talking horse ever.
Purdue Pharma submitted incomplete and misleading data to show Oxy was not addictive.
Mr. Ed keeps asking for peer reviewed studies. Seems he does not understand the FDA approval process which relies solely on the data Big Pharma gives to the FDA.
"The FDA does not explicitly require peer-reviewed studies for drug approval, but it demands robust scientific evidence to demonstrate a drug's safety and efficacy."
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
And yet you won’t drink. Again, where are the peer reviewed studies that found no addictive link?
My God Mr. Ed. Dumbest talking horse ever.
You made an absurd claim that the more peer reviewed studies that find no causal links between two things means the more likely that there is a link. You used Oxy as an example.
For that example, you’ve provided…..ZERO such studies. You undermined your own argument. To the glue factory with you.
You made an absurd claim that the more peer reviewed studies that find no causal links between two things means the more likely that there is a link. You used Oxy as an example.
For that example, you’ve provided…..ZERO such studies. You undermined your own argument. To the glue factory with you.
"The FDA does not explicitly require peer-reviewed studies for drug approval, but it demands robust scientific evidence to demonstrate a drug's safety and efficacy." Peer reviewed studies not required for FDA okay.
Now, when the establishment claims lots of studies disproving a link between some drug (vaccine) they are profiting from and bad outcomes, you should be suspicious. Same people who attacked anyone who noted Covid was effectively treatable, that the jab would not stop transmission, that it likely came from a lab.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
You made an absurd claim that the more peer reviewed studies that find no causal links between two things means the more likely that there is a link. You used Oxy as an example.
For that example, you’ve provided…..ZERO such studies. You undermined your own argument. To the glue factory with you.
"The FDA does not explicitly require peer-reviewed studies for drug approval, but it demands robust scientific evidence to demonstrate a drug's safety and efficacy."
So by your own admission this is NOT an example of a ton of peer reviewed studies showing no link meaning there must be a link.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.