Pfizer just told it's investors that the releasing of their trials' data on the vaccine is a business risk, what do you think?

[anylolone]

... risks associated with... further information regarding the quality of pre-clinical, clinical or safety data...

(2/3) "... challenges related to public confidence, access, concerns about clinical data integrity..."

"... the possibility that COVID-19 will diminish in severity or prevalence, or disappear entirely;"

https://t.co/yCd1Ga8gPu
https://t.co/CJ8k9oGQ1U

[Juxtapose]

It's because we don't really need these experimental, leaky vaccines like they say we do. If they really cared about our health, they would encourage people to not be obese anymore and send us vitamin D among other things.

[AncientWisdom]

I’m not getting it. All the lies and secrecy are their for a reason. They aren’t telling and that’s a tell in and of itself.

[anylolone]

I get it, honestly. Flu shots tend to be highly ineffective and incapable of generating herd immunity even after being researched for a very long time. China was going to botch theirs and corner the market anyway. Pfiser never had the best track record, basically subsisting mostly of boner pills.
They just took the chance, along with a load of other more or less reputable labs, and ran with it, morals be damned.
They could have been honest and just turned it into a big consensual experiment, but not many people would have taken it.
And they could have still charged for it.

[AncientWisdom]

Yep not a fan of big pharma

[anylolone]

I don't have anything in particular against them, but I understand them.
"Nothing person, but I know you and I don't trust you with this" kind of thing.

[AncientWisdom]

I don’t trust government or big pharma. My family is Native American we know better then to trust the government. Big pharma owns the government. They hide true cures to sell poison this pandemic has created many more very wealthy people and made more billionaires. I will remain in the woods and the hills with my family. A society whose medical cures are hidden and lied about is nothing but a very large insane asylum. My grandfather always said when government comes to help with their hand out run

[BCA6010]

Well the obvious answer is because the efficacy of the original vaccine ended up being much lower than advertised, and their trials probably expose that they knew and lied about it. I expect the boosters would also come under fire because they don't make it to the public until the next variant is already overtaking the one the booster was meant for, making it pointless for most and their effectiveness exaggerated/difficult to accurately gauge.

In fairness, the average flu shot is only about 40% effective on any given year, so really they screwed themselves by making such absurd claims out of the gate, and the government media machine hasn't helped.

But most importantly of all, you have to keep in mind who exactly considers this a business interest. You may be aware of the fact that US representatives and senators can and frequently do commit insider trading, and pass measures that effectively choose winners and losers? Well, somewhere in the ballpark of 80% of them and swaths of other political elites are stockholders in Pfizer and/or Moderna, which also played a major role in torpedoing the J&J vaccine as well as foreign developed ones even though both of the others had also killed similar numbers of people. This is also almost certainly the reason why the US decided to ignore natural immunity until very recently.

[tartaarsaus]

The obvious answer is that anything that can contribute to lower-than-expected profits is by definition a business risk in US financial reporting

[tartaarsaus]

*anything related to core operations

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus Yes, like leaking of crucial information that shows they knew how effective their vacine was.

And that changed into becoming a treat once there's a leak that shows how great their trials were, which is why this is absent in Q3, but present in Q4.

[tartaarsaus]

Eh, there literally was a new variant of which it was clearly know that vaccines were less effective against.

That would be a business risk irrespective of whether the trials beforehand were properly done or not. And even if their trials were properly done, people that may believe they were not would also automatically qualify as a business risk.

Against, this is the basic definition of a business risk under US GAAP

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus And that's completely irrelevant to the revelation of this vaccine risks in pfizer clinical trials. Unless you want to say that they made this vaccine in order to be dangerous with this new variant that didn't existed when they made the studies.

Are you a conspiratorial right wing nazi racist sexist transphobe terrorist extremist?
Because the direct implication of what you said would be that they made the vaccine to be risky with the new variant and made the new variant to be specially risky with the vaccine.

[tartaarsaus]

This is too stupid.

People believing their clinical trials to be faulty is by definition a business risk, irrespective of whether their clinical trials were faulty.

[tartaarsaus]

You just need to learn what a business risk is and the absolute basics of financial reporting before making fantastical claims based on a financial report

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus Repeat with me "Omicron didn't exist at the trials, therefore it has nothing to do with trial data."

[tartaarsaus]

Obviously.

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus Doesn't seem obvious to you. "Eh, there literally was a new variant of which it was clearly know that vaccines were less effective against."

"That would be a business risk irrespective of whether the trials beforehand were properly done or not. And even if their trials were properly done, people that may believe they were not would also automatically qualify as a business risk."

Now repeat, I mean repeat with me: "Omicron didn't exist at the trials, therefore it has nothing to do with trial data." That means it doesn't explain why they changed it.

[tartaarsaus]

It absolutely does because there are two different things here you are conflating.

I think it is time ypu should read the absolute basics of US GAAP before you’re invoking financial reporting for your weird conspiracy theories

[tartaarsaus]

The point here is that the change relating to trials would always be a business risk irrespective of new variants or anything. As long as people believe it to be shady, it would by definition be a business risk, even if that belief is complete and utter nonsense and the clinical trials are absolutely perfect

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus But people always believed it was shady, since they came out, actually, still not in Q3.
Yet you explained this change by talking about the new variant that has nothing to do with this leaky vaccine, which was leaky from day one.

[NamerOfStars]

The company that pushed the FDA to give it until 2076 to release its safety data is acting in an unethical manner about said product? Next you'll be telling me that water is wet!

[anylolone]

I have to share this comedy gold with you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugyqOSUlR2A

[anylolone]

And another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV-CmdVU8HU

[jshm2]

Nothing special. All medicines have a level of risk

[anylolone]

Of course everything has a level of risk.

But not everything has the revelation of such risks already researched to be a danger to earnings, specially in the case of medicine, usually those risks are revealed the moment the studies are done because to hide them would be, well, a crime.

Aspirin still sells like crazy, and hormones never sold so much in history.

[joeldalton]

How could a safe and effective shot be a business risk?

[tartaarsaus]

A business risk by definition is the risk that some operation of the company may lead to inadequate profits.

For example, a new company having abetter shot than Pfizer is inherently a business risk.

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus they claimed releasing the data is the business risk. Not another competitor. How is that a risk for a shot that's safe and effective. Surely releasing study data showing how safe an effective it is would clearly boost sales. Seeing as how it's safe and effective.

[tartaarsaus]

This is a take based on the fact you don’t understand what a business risk is in accounting terminology.

Even if they would release data and some people have doubts about this data integrity, and this data is perfectly good, that would still be a business risk. It can still harm their reputation to a part of the population and can still lead to lower than expected profits. Then, by definition, it is a business risk.

[tartaarsaus]

A business risk doesn’t require that it is a faulty product, that they are deceiving people or anything like that.

As long as some people believe the vaccine to be crap and therefore don’t take it, this can be a business risk, even if the vaccine is perfectly good

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus Right, I mean why would anyone be hesitant about the virus? They're only immune from liability for any damage they possibly cause.

[tartaarsaus]

@joeldalton

There is a lot of experimental evidence to show for that humans are very often not rational decision-makers.

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus We've seen that with all the rule followers over the past two years.

[tartaarsaus]

We’ve indeed seen it with all people disobeying basic rules and refusing to take the vaccine. All of them, idiots

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus what the lockdown rules that have been proven to be ineffective at preventing deaths and have caused untold damage to our economy and society? Or the cloth mask rules that we now know are nothing more than "facial decoration" per the CDC? Or the vaccines that were sold as >90% effective at preventing the spread of covid-19?

Which one of those, exactly? Or all three?

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus If that was true, why the change in language?
That would be true from the start up to now.

[tartaarsaus]

@anylolone

Because the situation has changed? For example, Omicron spreads much faster up to the point where the WHO speculates the pandemic may be nearing its end in Europe.

In case you didn’t know, quarterly reports have to be filed, you know, every quarter. This means that stuff can happen between reports that require updating.

And yes, it is true, because that is quite literally the definition of business risk as used in financial reporting according to US accounting standards

[tartaarsaus]

@joeldalton

The vaccines have literally proven to be effective in both preventing severe illness and infection itself. Sure, it’s less now because of new variants, but that was impossible to predict exactly how the virus will develop.

And no, there are also academic studies showing facemasks are indeed effective.

Thus, pure irrationality to reject facemasks and the vaccine.

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus, lol. There have been no randomized controlled studies saying masks are effective, either. Lol. The CDC has stated that cloth masks are ineffective. Dr Wen went on CNN and literally stated they are nothing more than facial decoration. And that's putting aside Fauci's statements on masks.

Let's not forget, because you guys like to memory hole this kind of stuff. These vaccines were sold at being > 90% effective at stopping the spread of covid. Now the best, most generous you can say is 40%. Promoting such an ineffective vaccine during a pandemic only encourages the virus to mutate to avoid the vaccines.

[tartaarsaus]

Eh, yes. With variants the vaccine was not designed for it is less effective. With other former variants, it was very effective.

And lmao, nice you invoke the CDC in stating masks are ineffective (which is false in the first place, the CDC promotes them) but then also reject the CDC in its statement on vaccines.

Either regard it as a competent institution when you invoke it or not at all

[tartaarsaus]

And for the record, yes, there have been plenty studies that show facemasks are in dact effective. Also nice moment to remind you that not all cloth facemasks are created, such as FFP2, exist and are by design more effective than those traditional ones.

[joeldalton]

@tartaarsaus Guess which types are not allowed on planes, FFP2 or cloth?

[tartaarsaus]

I Was recently on a plane, had FFP2. Was absolutely allowed

[anylolone]

@tartaarsaus "the situation has changed" yes, the variant less lethal than common flu which ignores completely the vax that came up in a barely vaxxed country.
That's what makes the data from the trials being investigated hurt their earnings in Q4, but not in Q3.

[tartaarsaus]

I think Pfizer applies the definition of business risk, according to US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as they have a legal obligation to do so.

[tartaarsaus]

And since they actually understand the basics of what constitutes a business risk, this is a dumb question

[anylolone]

Then why it changed, explain every little bit.

How people having access to their full trial data wasn't a risk in Q3 but is in Q4.

[OddBeMe]

Do we have any evidence that proves this is real?

[anylolone]

Have you tried clicking the links? It's literally on the links down under, both reports in full.