Imagine thinking that placebo-controlled, double-blinded randomized clinical trials say "it works because I said so."

Surprised you don't fall out of your own shoes in your upside-down world.

I am not distrusting the method. I am distrusting the person that claims to follow it, behind closed doors and comes out with only a result.

Again: This reveals an ignorance about how trials actually work. You should be more curious.

Clinical trials don't happen "behind closed doors and come out with only a result."

Clinical trials are run independently across hundreds if not thousands of research sites. The people who run these studies do not work for the pharma companies. They do not work with each other. They do not know whether the drugs they're giving each patient is the real drug or the placebo. They therefore have no way to coordinate fraud with each other and actually execute it at a scale required to both change the results and be undetectable (i.e. massive, systematic deviations on top of randomized data that produces something other than just "more noise"). Each of the thousands of people who would need to cooperate in this conspiracy would be risking years in prison, the destruction of their businesses, and the cancelation of their medical licenses... for... literally no benefit? The people actually running these studies (which are not the pharma companies themselves) don't get paid more or less money based on the results!

Every step from initial data entry through to data analysis is auditable and inspected by the FDA. The statistical analysis plan is written prior to any data being collected, and any ad-hoc deviation from the pre-established analysis plan must be defended to the FDA. No "data corrections" can happen once analysis has started without very specific audit and approval by FDA for each individual data correction.

Again: this is a really remarkable system that is a lot of fun to learn about if you have some curiosity. It's not perfect, but it's especially strong at the massive scale of the vaccine trials because there would be so many data points that need to be manipulated by so many independent parties that it's just a ridiculous notion.

He he...it is very funny that you just assume that I trust the FDA. I mean, the thought "May be this guy does not trust FDA" does not seem to have even cross your mind...

He he... it is very funny that you just assume this has anything to do with trust.

It has to do with incentives and capability.

Please describe the specific threat vector you're concerned about. Is it a rogue auditor changing some numbers around? Is it dozens of rogue reviewers just lying about what they see? Is it bribes? To whom? To do what, specifically?

Do you think the market is currently just flooded with ineffective or unsafe drugs because the FDA is bad at its job?

Tell me: Why haven't insurers – who spend all day every day understanding cost/risk/benefit tradeoffs of different drugs - detected this?

Or are they also in cahoots, and they just love spending their profits on drugs that are either ineffective or actively damaging their risk pool?

Surely you must have an actual theory of how this fraud happens, otherwise I suppose you just believe things with no evidence (but make it smug).

"Skeptic" brainworm got another one, it appears. So skeptical (and uncurious) that he's rendered himself incapable of evaluating evidence. Many such cases, unfortunately.

Ah, you are really confused.

First of all, insurers do sell insurance against vaccine injuries. And pharma companies buy that insurance.

Secondly, the companies that insure pharma companies are not the same companies (nor types of policies) that insure patients, and are completely unrelated to the question of insurers assessing evidence of drugs' safety or efficacy.

You (being deeply uncurious) are confusing "health insurers evaluate drug safety/efficacy" (which is true) with "corporate liability insurers refuse to insure vaccine injury risk" (which is false), with something completely unrelated, which is that governments generally create a first-order insurance fund for vaccines in order to prevent unpredictable litigation costs from completely obliterating the economic viability of making vaccines.

By the way, these public insurance funds do not cover cases of manufacturing defects, fraud, or negligence. So even giving you the benefit of the doubt on each of your points of confusion... it's still 100% irrelevant to whatever argument you think you're making.

Again: Some more curiosity about the world would really do you wonders!

It's not at all obvious what you're talking about because the words you're saying make literally no sense.

> The question is why is there no insurance that a person can by that will cover any FDA approved vaccine injury for them or their family?

You have this exactly backwards lol. There is no insurance you can buy that will cover "drug injuries" from any drug. The only type of drug that you actually do have insurance against are the vaccines, under the state-backed programs.

I have already articulated why the state-backed programs do not obviate the need for product liability insurance. You should go back and read it again, but (again), with a little bit more actual curiosity.

Anyway, it's clear you don't have any actual theory (or base understanding) about how any of this works, or what the actual nefarious actions are, what's actually wrong, etc.

Until you can articulate specifically what you think is "going on" here, it's not worth my time trying to educate you on concepts like insurance coverage.

But anyway I actually do like your idea of selling a high-premium insurance to dumbasses for vaccine injuries. I'm going to look into starting this as a startup.