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