More information is available regarding inflammation issues in children.  In this case full body inflammation, similar to the spike protein warnings Dr. Malone indicated, is even more common than standard myocarditis/pericarditis.

Most children who become infected with the COVID-19 virus have only a mild illness. But in children who go on to develop MIS-C, some organs and tissues — such as the heart, lungs, blood vessels, kidneys, digestive system, brain, skin or eyes — become severely inflamed. Signs and symptoms depend on which areas of the body are affected.


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780861?resultCl...

https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/mis-c-in-kids-covid-19/symptom...


 Now this is not a 1 in 10 ratio where we should be seeing thousands and thousands of kids in hospitals.  

 The ratio is at about 20 per million.

 Myocarditis/pericarditis is much lower at about 4.6 per million for age 18 and under.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/


 At 20 per million is it a big enough issue to address in large scale?  Would it be appropriate to recommend a response at this ratio?

 Since it is 3 times more likely to happen, should it be addressed more so than myocarditis/pericarditis.

I was watching television last night and one of those drug commercials came on and at the end they run through the entire list of the bad things that could happen. How come we don’t see that when commercials encouraging people to take the vaccine come on? Shouldn’t they do the same thing? Just saying.

 No.  Manufacturers can not promote their products under the Emergency Use Authorization so there are no vaccine specific commercials from the manufacturers and specifically the word manufactures in exclusivity with the exemption of all other known words.  Manufacturers are not promoting vaccines and that is where the FDA side-effect guidelines apply.
 
 Commercials promoting vaccination are not equal to manufacturer's promoting their product.  Think of the political commercials where a Candidate says "I approve of this message" or similar.  That statement would be equal in requirement to the side-effect warnings you are asking about.  

 There are also ads that do not have Candidate's endorsement - those ads encourage you to vote a certain way, but are not the production of the actual Candidate's campaign.  They must have a different disclaimer, but that is directly related to politics and not medical/FDA related content.

"A cynical person such as myself might almost be led to suspect that the Pharma  bro's had a great deal of influences in crafting the rules."

 I doubt it as they are mutually exclusive in regards to governance when it comes to FDA and EUA disclaimer function.  Why would Pharma want advertising to be done by a notoriously poor and inefficient system in comparison to their own very successful programs?

 It's like my business having a stellar record making profits selling our product but instead I literally lobby to make it illegal for me to continue doing this.  I would lose billions in profit to save millions in advertising.

Maybe because it doesn't cost them anything !?


 It does cost them in profit loss if you look at the numbers the "ads" reached alone.  There's no way the current sh!tty system would do a better job than Pharma would.  It's like Facebook creating legislature to make it illegal for them to advertise anywhere but local print newspapers.  It is so tremendously inefficient by comparison that even if every single person that saw those print ads and bought product, they could never reach the amount if just 10% bought product from the regular modern advertising expenditures.

 Also this is all pure speculation.  

 Looking at the legislative timeline I find it highly unlikely Pharma worked to create this.  First they would have had to predict, in 1938, how this event would arise, the technology that would be developed, and also wanted to limit their exposure to the public by over 68%.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690298/

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=314.81

"The collusion between the pharmaceutical corporations and the agencies that are supposed to oversee them on behalf of the citizens is too well known to even argue about."

 I agree with that but I do not agree that the legislation for EAU and televised advertising was specifically influenced by Pharma since the legislative steps making it apply were around before television.  I also do not think television commercials that were produced and used by taxpayer money had anywhere near the impact that internet or other advertising did.  Millions of people per second are reached by internet advertising, TV commercials can't even come close.

 Creating an avenue to reduce advertising opportunities, decades in advance, seems very improbable to me.  The loss in exposure far outweighs the cost in advertising.

"Too Absolute.
Less than perfect free advertising Coupled with the
Take the jab or get fired
pressure..."

 They are definitely benefitting from that, but to say that they spent decades creating legislature to make it happen is quite a reach.  The desire to vilify Pharma is overshadowing the recorded timeline of events, and leaving out additional reasons for EUA, like making medicine for example.

 EUA legislation doesn't even address mandates, so saying Pharma created legislation to combine mandates and limit their own advertising to they can have the Government do it for them makes no sense.  What if the current administration didn't enact mandates?  I bet Pharma made that happen too.

 
"Could the industry create a better market by doing the advertising?"

 According to sales data they can by billions and billions of dollars.



Maybe.. Why risk it? Your declaration that the pharmaceutical industry could drive demand better doesn't make it true

 The declaration that Pharma was involved in the legislation doesn't make it true.

 The difference is the exposure, and the tremendous amount of evidence.  TV commercials made by the Government hit a very small part of the population compared to online advertising.  Millions per minute are reached by pharmaceutical online advertising, there is no way some TV ads can reach that standard.  

 Again I agree that Pharma is getting some free advertising and the combination of mandates helps their bottom line.  But to say they intentionally spend decades legislating advertising restrictions on themselves is mathematically, and chronologically illogical by a very large degree.

 "The Superbowl commercials  that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a second should do so good"

 A Superbowl commercial costs 6 million dollars.  

 Pfizer alone, spends about 5 Million 2 hundred thousand per day advertising in the US.  That's over 16 thousand Superbowl commercials in one year. from just one company.  

https://www.statista.com/statistics/192112/us-ad-spending-of-pfizer/

 One thing to keep in mind is the terrible efficiency of the US Government, especially when it comes to something uncommon, like advertising a vaccine.  If they drop 2 billion in advertising it won't be anywhere near as efficient as an actual advertising agency and it barely reaches the budget of one pharmaceutical company.  

 Given the outstanding level of marketing dollars compared to the amount of "free" marketing the US government is providing it would be fair to say it is the ratio equivalent of me paying 10,000 a year in gas and then lobbying - for decades - to save $4.23 once.  

 Would it be reasonable for me to spend decades trying to influence legislation in the hopes a pandemic would happen so I could save less than 5 bucks?

declaration that Pharma was involved in the legislation doesn't make it true.

No, but the government and pharmaceutical companies want the jab to be wide spread, so considering they have the same goals, expectations of no collusion is a bit naive.

When observed reality says it's so, it's likely So.