RFK will require placebo controlled trials for vaccines

[Anonymous]

This is like saying, for all new cancer drugs we test moving forward, we'll give the control group saline/placebo pill instead of whatever is the standard of care (e.g. existing/established chemo drug, etc.)

Any volunteers??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is like saying, for all new cancer drugs we test moving forward, we'll give the control group saline/placebo pill instead of whatever is the standard of care (e.g. existing/established chemo drug, etc.)

Any volunteers??

It’s worse than this. We’re talking about infants and toddlers. Even if the parents are abusive and stupid enough to sign their baby up to possibly get the placebo MMR, polio, DP and tetanus shots risking death, paralysis, blindness and deafness from a preventable disease..the infant can’t give consent.

I really, really wish someone would look RFK in an escape proof sealed biohazard room and let loose Ebola, bubonic plague and smallpox. Let’s televise it so everyone can see how well his snake oil supplements protect him.

[Anonymous]

This is a policy choice. Many people believe that vaccines already go through the sort of testing that RFK proposed. Whether it's a good idea or ethical is another matter, but the argument that this is somehow unscientific is exactly why people are losing faith in our public health authorities -- you cannot just make Delphic pronouncements about what "The Science" requires and expect people to listen forever

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a policy choice. Many people believe that vaccines already go through the sort of testing that RFK proposed. Whether it's a good idea or ethical is another matter, but the argument that this is somehow unscientific is exactly why people are losing faith in our public health authorities -- you cannot just make Delphic pronouncements about what "The Science" requires and expect people to listen forever

The policy is to stop evolution of vaccines in 2025. If it turns out we need a better whooping cough vaccine because years of low vaccination have lead to the disease evolving, we can’t just tweak it. We need to let hundreds of babies die horrible and completely preventable deaths first to “prove” the tweaked vaccine is safe.

[Anonymous]

Interesting thread! We all agree that vaccines are all extremely safe and effective. Some of us say it’s because they HAVE been safety tested against placebos in double blind clinical trials, while others of us say that they were NOT tested this way because it would have been unethical. We’ve all come to the same conclusions (all vaccines perfectly safe) with wildly different and conflicting understandings about whether and how they are tested. It’s funny how sure we are of the conclusion while we’re unsure (as a group) about how these things are tested

[Anonymous]

The industry tends to be less interested in tweaking old vaccines than in developing new vaccines to add to the schedule.

[Anonymous]

By the way, they DO use DB placebo trials with promising new cancer drugs. Ignoring the ethical problem of depriving someone of a good drug. The ethical argument against DB placebo trials is only used for vaccines. It

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The industry tends to be less interested in tweaking old vaccines than in developing new vaccines to add to the schedule.

If you found a way to prevent death in a way that has never been done before, wouldn’t you want to do it? What we have for measles today is pretty darn good. Why gild the Lilly when you can move on to preventing deaths and untold suffering from cancer? (That’s the HPV vaccine for you). And the industry tweaks the flu vaccine every year. Or at least, it did. Guess we won’t have that anymore. I was happy to take my chances on the shot every year but that choice appears to be taken away from me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The industry tends to be less interested in tweaking old vaccines than in developing new vaccines to add to the schedule.

If you found a way to prevent death in a way that has never been done before, wouldn’t you want to do it? What we have for measles today is pretty darn good. Why gild the Lilly when you can move on to preventing deaths and untold suffering from cancer? (That’s the HPV vaccine for you). And the industry tweaks the flu vaccine every year. Or at least, it did. Guess we won’t have that anymore. I was happy to take my chances on the shot every year but that choice appears to be taken away from me.

There will be vaccines available somewhere at some cost. It's going to be an economic and health decision that people will have to make. Low income people will be left out in the cold as they always are but people with resources that want a vaccine will get a vaccine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to find out that vaccines weren't double blind with placebos.

How in the F would you possibly administer placebo for horrific infectious disease in an ethical manner? How is science education m the US so bad?

I'm an engineer, I just was surprised that was what was not done in the past when the first vaccines came out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to find out that vaccines weren't double blind with placebos.

How in the F would you possibly administer placebo for horrific infectious disease in an ethical manner? How is science education m the US so bad?

I'm an engineer, I just was surprised that was what was not done in the past when the first vaccines came out.

1796?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The industry tends to be less interested in tweaking old vaccines than in developing new vaccines to add to the schedule.

If you found a way to prevent death in a way that has never been done before, wouldn’t you want to do it? What we have for measles today is pretty darn good. Why gild the Lilly when you can move on to preventing deaths and untold suffering from cancer? (That’s the HPV vaccine for you). And the industry tweaks the flu vaccine every year. Or at least, it did. Guess we won’t have that anymore. I was happy to take my chances on the shot every year but that choice appears to be taken away from me.

There will be vaccines available somewhere at some cost. It's going to be an economic and health decision that people will have to make. Low income people will be left out in the cold as they always are but people with resources that want a vaccine will get a vaccine.

Sadly, they’re just not as effective if they’re not widespread. That’s what people don’t seem to realize about public health - it’s beyond personal choices, control, and resources. You can be healthy and make every correct choice, but if you’re one of the few that don’t seroconvert, the first idiot roaming the airports with active measles is going to take you out.

For any communicable disease, the more idiots roaming the streets with disease, the worse your odds are going to be. 96% effective is great, but if you’re getting exposed 100 or 1,000 times in short order…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The industry tends to be less interested in tweaking old vaccines than in developing new vaccines to add to the schedule.

If you found a way to prevent death in a way that has never been done before, wouldn’t you want to do it? What we have for measles today is pretty darn good. Why gild the Lilly when you can move on to preventing deaths and untold suffering from cancer? (That’s the HPV vaccine for you). And the industry tweaks the flu vaccine every year. Or at least, it did. Guess we won’t have that anymore. I was happy to take my chances on the shot every year but that choice appears to be taken away from me.

There will be vaccines available somewhere at some cost. It's going to be an economic and health decision that people will have to make. Low income people will be left out in the cold as they always are but people with resources that want a vaccine will get a vaccine.

Sadly, they’re just not as effective if they’re not widespread. That’s what people don’t seem to realize about public health - it’s beyond personal choices, control, and resources. You can be healthy and make every correct choice, but if you’re one of the few that don’t seroconvert, the first idiot roaming the airports with active measles is going to take you out.

For any communicable disease, the more idiots roaming the streets with disease, the worse your odds are going to be. 96% effective is great, but if you’re getting exposed 100 or 1,000 times in short order…

This country voted to bring back measles. That ship has sailed until we at some point decide we don't want to have measles be endemic again. And then it takes a really long time to achieve that.

In the meantime, people will do what they can do to protect their families as they always have. The days of freeloading on high vaccine rates are going to be over soon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to find out that vaccines weren't double blind with placebos.

How in the F would you possibly administer placebo for horrific infectious disease in an ethical manner? How is science education m the US so bad?

I'm an engineer, I just was surprised that was what was not done in the past when the first vaccines came out.

They were. They just don’t do it for the tweaked or reformulated vaccines. Then they only compare the tweaked version against what came before to see if it’s better. They don’t make people forego any measles vaccine at all in order to trial a reformulated one. That would be unethical and quite frankly, a public health disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was shocked to find out that vaccines weren't double blind with placebos.

How in the F would you possibly administer placebo for horrific infectious disease in an ethical manner? How is science education m the US so bad?

I'm an engineer, I just was surprised that was what was not done in the past when the first vaccines came out.

They were. They just don’t do it for the tweaked or reformulated vaccines. Then they only compare the tweaked version against what came before to see if it’s better. They don’t make people forego any measles vaccine at all in order to trial a reformulated one. That would be unethical and quite frankly, a public health disaster.

You might consider that unethical, but this is *not* the approach followed for pharmaceutical therapeutics. It is 100% not the case that the control arm in a trial for a new cancer drug is the standard of care.