clear financial incentives are never conspiracy theories: always follow the money.

thinking that they are conspiracy theories? that's a conspiracy theorist.

There's no clear financial incentive on the decisions here. If there were, it would be collusion, and not in the open, and therefore not clear.

▲

fsckboy 4 days ago | parent [-]

the cdc decides to make recommendations no matter how expensive, and big pharma collects the expensive, and the expert community works for the cdc and big pharma? do you even understand what regulatory capture is? do you understand how framing something as saving lives no matter the cost draws attention away from funneling money to big pharma no matter the deficit?

let me guess, you work in this area too.

▲

epistasis 4 days ago | parent [-]

Since you already replied to my other comment, hopefully you understand now that ACIP takes into account cost as part of its recommendations, but the independent group we were talking about in this thread does not.

Even with CDC its recommendations, it's not the final word.

The reasoning you're highlighting here is highly conspiratorial

	▲	Fomite 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		There's also a much less pronounced revolving door at the CDC as compared to the DoD I would argue.