3 ms·
I don't think it would be outright fraud that I would be looking for, but rather them glossing over things like composition of the group, the novelty of the RNA
by tehjoker 6y ago
I don't think it would be outright fraud that I would be looking for, but rather them glossing over things like composition of the group, the novelty of the RNA approach and how that could affect different subgroups given we'll be giving it not to 30k but hundreds of millions of people at least. A kind of crazy thing that occurs to me, how does it interact with someone that has a retrovirus infection? I get that those reverse-transcriptase proteins act specifically, but weird stuff out of left field could be a problem once deployed widely.
I figure a peer reviewed article would at least have to address the "known unknowns".
- refurb 6y agoI mean, that's the FDA's job right? And they have advisory committee's made up of academic experts who review the trial design and data. It's not like we're taking the company's word for it.
- tehjoker 6y agoTo be honest, I'm not taking anyone's word for anything at this point. I want to see for myself.
- refurb 6y agoWell, the data will be published at a high-level (by the physicians who work with the company and ran the trial), but you won't get to see the level of data the FDA sees. You don't have much choice but to put some faith in them.
- tehjoker 6y agoI'll take it, that's still far better than PR press.