The Dismal Anti-Science of Modern Medicine: “less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration”
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it
— Lloyd Chambers
Previously I had learned that at least two studies found that 75% of adverse medical events went unreported. But this publication referenced via VAERS makes the claim that the situation is far worse.
Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of “problem” drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.
WIND: whether it’s 99% or 87% or 75% unreported, this should give anyone pause, pegging the bullshit meter at redline any time a drug is claimed to be “safe”. What exactly is the argument against this being anything but a gross ethical violation within the medical establishment? Evaluating safety depends on good data, and if that data is not collected, what then?
As a rule of life, whenever there is huge financial incentive and little downside, corruption is guaranteed to happen.
Now read that 2nd paragraph about vaccines... feel good? You’re taking 3 or 4 prescription drugs... feel good? Good luck with that.
The unholy trinity of Big Pharma profits, medical guidelines, and the FDA and its revolving door to Big Pharma are surely harming the public via their data-gathering incompetence (which might be one of the smaller issues). My Metronidazole experience is only one such case.
What do the statistics above say about doctors who accept the safety profile of a drug approved based on dubious scientific merit, then internalize that acceptance, going on to prescribe it for years as per guidelines? Seems like a cognitive committment based on a logical fallacy (absence of proof is not proof of absence) perhaps in every case.
Which raises the question (and I understand the practical challenges, which are difficult): are doctors who accept safety claims on faith violating their oath of practice (“first, do no harm”). Because if the claims are based on a logical fallacy, then doctors have a huge burden to spend more time than they have trying to figure out the truth. Let alone fill in the gaping hole of (lack of) nutritional knowledge.
The mantra of “trust the experts” and “trust the data” is fodder for the gullible.