Is the hypothesis that there is some kind of psychosomatic/placebo effect to vaccines, where just the process of getting injected changes outcomes? I find that hard to believe.
Randomly expose patients to the risk of contracting a known debilitating/deadly disease
Or
No one who comes in for the vaccine will consent the trial
The reason the updates aren't currently tested this way is because medical research ethics perspectives on the balance of risk of novel unknown effects vs known risk of withholding effective treatment from the placebo group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinical_equipoise
Could not be more obviously building towards flatly banning vaccines. I originally figured it would take 2-3 years to do it but now I think it'll be this year. With his recent comments about autism ("we'll know by september") I suspect the plan is to announce a """discovery""" around then along with a "temporary" emergency ban. And then that's it our children will be dying by the millions again.
> "He's an anti-vaccine activist, a science denialist who is going to do everything he can to tear down the infrastructure in this country of vaccines. Robert F. Kennedy Jr is a dangerous man."
Good shit Dr Paul, thank you. RFK may well turn out to be the single most malign individual of this whole depravity.
> An ethical dilemma arises in a clinical trial when the investigator(s) begin to believe that the treatment or intervention administered in one arm of the trial is significantly outperforming the other arms. A trial should begin with a null hypothesis, and there should exist no decisive evidence that the intervention or drug being tested will be superior to existing treatments, or that it will be completely ineffective. As the trial progresses, the findings may provide sufficient evidence to convince the investigator of the intervention or drug's efficacy. Once a certain threshold of evidence is passed, there is no longer genuine uncertainty about the most beneficial treatment, so there is an ethical imperative for the investigator to provide the superior intervention to all participants.
Without that we delay treatment, increase costs, and slow research. And people die while we wait.
Test what's most likely to be a problem, and avoid wasting resources proving what we already know.
This is for new vaccines: we're not halting administration of existing vaccines. And the time taken for testing new vaccines seems reasonable for safety purposes, as it would be for any other medicine.
If annual influenza vaccines cannot be approved in time for flu season and flu deaths increase significantly over the years to come, would you consider that justifiable?
The article mentions ‘ four years ago is unacceptable so it sounds like they want to retest new versions every four years, rather than every new version.
Your choice of quote makes it seem like you are misunderstanding or deliberately misrepresenting the article. In more context:
> "As we've said before, trials from four years ago conducted in people without natural immunity no longer suffice. A four-year-old trial is also not a blank check for new vaccines each year without clinical trial data, unlike the flu shot which has been tried and tested for more than 80 years," Nixon said in a statement he had earlier sent to The Washington Post. "The public deserves transparency and gold-standard science — especially with evolving products."
This states that a Covid vaccine passing the placebo-controlled study requirement 4 years ago will not suffice to accept updated versions of the same Covid vaccine -- not that vaccines and/or delivery mechanisms will only need to be tested every 4 years. More concisely: it's an upper bound, but not a lower bound.
Edit: Fixing up some grammar.
Given the answer is clearly and obviously “none”, why do you think you’re qualified to have any opinion at all?
Anyone supporting RFK should explain to their grandparents why getting and dying from the flu is actually a good thing, this fall.
e.g.: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02644...
Spivak•8h ago
In tech terms they're the principal architects now and they're using that power to get their preferences on minor PR reviews merged.
giraffe_lady•8h ago
techpineapple•7h ago
watwut•1h ago
Nothing about this moment created conditions for such a thing.
There was no support for such a thing and no real promiss to do such a thing. No track record fod GOP proposing good regulation.
Project 2025 was known and not about helping people. The anto vaccine regulations are already a thing in red states.