Is it? I don't remember reading about that in NIH training on control groups. I'm pretty sure when your plan is to distribute 1 billion vaccines, holding out 0.000015 for a placebo control group is a sensible "ethical" tradeoff. Especially if, I don't know, everyone *volunteered* and agreed to those terms when signing up! And especially if, I don't know, all the data they had to date showed no increase in death rate?

Exactly. And some would. But most would not. Just like every other randomized control study. It boggles the mind to say "let's tell everyone they got the placebo, because some people might leave". That does not follow logic.

> plot to hide the long-term inefficacy of their vaccines is absurd.

What part of that is absurd?

At the time the control groups were destroyed, there was no evidence that the vaccines were saving lives (https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download — 7 deaths in placebo group; 7 in control group). Now, if you got tens of billions of dollars based on those early results, wouldn't you have *strong* incentives to shut things down, and not wait for the long-term verdict? What would you have to gain if 2 years in, the placebo group continued to have just as few deaths as the vaccine group?

Are you saying that the idea that humans respond to incentives is absurd?

Can you show me where this is demonstrated?

>A study were all the participants are exposed on purpose to the disease is very difficult to justify, with or without control group.

I agree, solid scientific study on vaccines is nearly immoral.

So from a dispassionate scientific perspective, it seems reasonable to state the science on vaccines is not settled.

I have an idea. What if we did a randomized control placebo group and compared death rates. That is the gold standard, right? Well they did that, and the placebo group and vaccine group had the same death rate (their next move then was to end the placebo group).

I would be surprised if it turns out the vaccines don't save lives, but I haven't seen any clear cut proof that they are, given that the one experiment that would have proven it conclusively didn't, and then was ended early. So I think it's a perfectly justifiable statement and point of view.

You could easily find millions of potential study participants who don’t want the vaccine. The study wouldn’t be double-blind, but it would be single-blind and better than what they chose to do.

This is the attitude I am talking about. As I said earlier, I agree treatment options are not a substitute for vaccination. Why does being pro-vaccine necessitate being hostile to treatment options?

First off, Some people can't get vaccinated, and some vaccinated still get ill.

Second, for those who refuse to get vaccinated (as ill advised as it may be), don't we want them to have the 2nd best health outcome possible? Don't we want to minimize healthcare burden and social harm?

It seems like there is a large contingent of the population that want these people to suffer and die, and root for treatments to fail. Some sort of vindictiveness where folks are willing to sacrifice the public interest and their own to spite the vaccine-resistant.

As I understand it, medical ethics isn’t about utilitarianism, or else we’d skip the rats and monkeys and just go straight to testing on the poor for money. They don’t seem to prioritize minimizing the opportunity cost of avoiding bad outcomes. Their guiding principle seems to be avoiding giving harmful treatment.

Meanwhile some healthcare workers at my partner’s facility are skeptical about whether the vaccine was rushed (I think they’re crazy, for the record). But there’s real risk if enough of the public doesn’t trust the vaccine. I’d bet that kind of angle is part of why they focus on “do no harm” instead of “minimize cumulative regret.”

Hmm, I don't see the basis for this conclusion. This treatment is acting according to the common definition of a vaccine. Whether before or after disease activation is not part of the definition. As far as your personal belief, I understand that you may feel strongly, but I'm sorry to say that doesn't really enter into articulating an accepted scientific definition.

vaccine: any preventive preparation used to stimulate the body’s immune response against a specific disease, ...

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/vaccine

Could you be more specific about any particular legal shield? They all have to go through the same phased trials system. I don't see any reason to conclude this is a legal shenanigan. What they have created meets the well-known definition of a vaccine.

So if this is true then there should be no testing period right? We should know out the gate if a vaccine is safe or not right? Clearly this is incorrect.

If you like testing vaccines, join the military. Then let’s see after you’re injected with various chemicals and get a 100% disability from it if you feel the same way and attempt to force others into your line of thought.

It is kinda of amazing to me sometimes just how selectively people can parse an evidencebase

> In this circumstance as well, taking a chance is worth it.

Nope nope nope nope. This is the literal example of survivor bias. You can't look at the results and use them to inform prior behaviour. The vaccine could have had catastrophic side effects.

In this polarized environment CDC/FDA/WHO/AMA are political organizations first and authoritative ones second. The conflict of interest here is legitimate and the loss of their authority with the public is in great part their own doing.

If they think they got a functional vaccine and change their behavior as a result, a placebo has the potential to do untold harm all by itself. Further, it erodes loss of confidence so that when a working vaccine is discovered, it's even harder to get people to take it.

The FDA has faults, but when you look at people's objections it boils down to erring on the side of being too safe. How much trust would a regulator have if it erred on the side of being too unsafe?

There was a chance that this was going to be true. It didn't turn out that way. You're basically blaming them for trying, or what is your point?

I shouldn't have to address this point since the vaccines are presented as ultra efficient (94% or more).

> because most countries have vaccinated 0% of their under-12s.

They're not at risk, why should they get vaccinated?

So now you're going to tell me they're transmitting the virus. OK, but if the vaccine works, who cares?

If the vaccine works why are vaccinated people afraid of the unvaccinated. If it doesn't work why get vaccinated and why insist everyone gets it?

This is BS. What we have are encouraging preliminary tests made by the creator of the vaccine.

Before we can trust it it needs to be confronted to the real world.

Multiple cases of people getting infected despite having the first shot and multiple cases of suspect deaths don't inspire confidence the vaccine is as good as touted.

I do not understand if this argument is made in good faith or if it's covid deniers stirring shit up in the public debate or just rationalizing their fear of the syringe (yes, I know of 2 anti-vax who admitted it was their original reasons to refuse the vaccine).

You might elicit sympathy for your plight if you had lab confirmed robust preexisting natural immunity which was being ignored, or you were a young man at great risk of myo/pericarditis, or severely allergic to vaccine ingredients. However, as you merely stated an obvious falsehood, that the vaccines are experimental, you get no sympathy from me. What do you think you’re going to discover that the ~100,000 phase I-III test subjects and billions of people who already got vaccinated haven’t already discovered?

At what point is this going to stop being a talking point? Billions of doses, well over a year of data, at what point will people be satisfied? Every day this seems less and less valid, and it didn't seem terribly valid when vaccines initially started rolling out.