I don’t know why they choose to do them separately, but they literally do. None of the efficacy trials test or look for any of the problems that people are concerned with. The record “redness at the site” and “sore arm.” Barely a handful of localized and low risk concerns. Why don’t you ask the manufacturers why they refuse to do a real safety trial?
And on your point that retrospectives are the only evidence against, you’re right, which is why for *decades* they have demanded a real placebo controlled safety trial. Broad retrospectives cannot prove or disprove anything, they are useful to decide whether something warrants much more serious scientific investigation. Which is exactly the point. The hundreds of mothers who walked into the pediatrician with a perfectly normal, loving child and had a child that reversed their potty training, stopped reaching up for hugs, and literally “turned off” within 24-48 hours of their visit are demanding the science be done. Yet the very institutions that should be required refuse to do so, and have co-opted th regulatory agencies so horribly that they bought themselves permanent immunity from any and all consequence relate to this “perfectly safe” product that they will not do a serious clinical safety trial for.
I’m sorry but tha just smells like bullshit from 50 different directions. And we went through this exact same thing for decades with the tobacco industry. They have scientific paper after scientific paper and retrospective studies upon studies showing how safe it was and that there was no way it caused cancer. Yet here we are.
I start looking when there’s a yellow flag. But when I spend dozens of hours and every single corner I think I’m about to find this “excellent science” I run into a dead end and an excuse… I’d have to be an idiot to take them at their word.
