"Experimental" Vaccines

Are they really?

"It was an exceedingly predatory and telling experiment and the data continues to roll in."

… said a genuine hero recently.

Mmm, yes and no.

Do you really think these vaccines are experimental?

Stage 1

“They are safe and effective”. (“Because that is the notion that comes to my mind when the issue of safety and effectiveness comes up”).

Stage 2

They are “experimental” “vaccines”. (“Although the research was rushed, there was an emergency”).

Stage 3

…

Perhaps someone might (very loosely) call it an experimental intervention, and just mean that the experiment hadn't been done yet to establish safety and efficacy. But I wouldn't like that useage.

If it were "experimental" I think that ought to mean that someone is doing an experiment. If that's the case then

• there should be a thoughtful experimental design, that is published;

• there should be a control group;

• there should be a system for collecting lots of careful measurements;

• there should be clearly collated and presented data.

Presumably it hardly needs pointing out that none of this has happened.

The experimental design has not risen to the standard of a reasonably well-educated 12-year-old, let alone an “expert”.

I would argue that since we are funding this excercise (against our will in many cases - mine included) we should have access to the data and the experimental design.

No: this is not an experiment. They are concealing results and deliberately not looking for them. There is no control group. Whatever the design and purpose of the exercise are, it's not to elucidate the nature of reality.

This is a group of drug pushers extorting money with menaces.

When there is a large organisation executing a drug-pushing programme, they often have another purpose in mind besides the obvious lucrative benefit: they are destroying - or at least handicapping - that society. Witness the Opium Wars that Britain waged on China; the CIA and “Freeway” Ricky Ross programme in LA; giving alcohol to Native Americans in the seventeenth or eighteenth century; heroin in Vietnam and Afghanistan. That looks a more likely motive in this case than finding out something useful.

---

When someone sticks a needle into you against your will, I understand that is Battery.

When someone threatens to stick a needle into you against your will, I understand that is Assault.

That's a criminal act.

Your government either co-erced you into taking it or was an accessory before the fact.

Your government is a criminal organisation.

You should not fund criminal organisations - mainly because it's immoral, but also illegal.

---

If we don't like calling it an "experimental" intervention, what to call it then, when you want to indicate that the research has not been done!

How about "untested"; or "un-evaluated"; ... ?

Any other suggestions? We need a punchy, distinctive, memorable, rhetorically effective term or phrase, please.

... ideally including implications of criminal, aggressive, deceitful: but that's not possible in just one word, I imagine. So don't let me stop you coming up with suggestions that are better than the bland "untested" or "un-evaluated"!