6 ms·
We all are still waiting peer-reviewd scientific papers instead of press releases....
by gr2zr4 6y ago
We all are still waiting peer-reviewd scientific papers instead of press releases....
- nojito 6y agoThis isn’t true. The health institutions of the respective countries have access to the raw study data which they use to determine whether or not to approve them. The amount of fear mongering in hackernews is just mind blowing.
- goodcanadian 6y agoI don't think it is fear mongering. While the health institutes have access to the data, I don't. I don't think anyone on hacker news can make many intelligent statements about side effects, yet, though the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines.
- anthonypasq 6y agoWhy would you personally need access to the data unless you actually think the government would allow people to take a dangerous vaccine.
- jMyles 6y agoWe are a scientifically literate society, and increasingly so. We do not simply summon blind faith in institutions to interpret the world in which we live; we share with each other and seek truth. I do not trust governments, not only (and not primarily) because they have violated trust, but because trust in governments to be arbiters of scientific truth is not a healthy or sustainable practice in a civilized society.
- minkzilla 6y agoPretty much all governments have a history of maliciousness and/or incompetence. Well I think it unlikely they would allow it. It is certainly in the realm of possible scenarios.
- goodcanadian 6y agoI don't actually want the raw data as I am not an epidemiologist, but I do want to see peer-reviewed papers as the grandparent to my original comment was waiting for before making a judgment. The point is that there are very few people in the world who can currently say anything intelligent about the subject of side effects in this vaccine. From my basic knowledge of vaccines and the approval process, I suspect any side effects will be heavily out-weighed by the benefits, but right now, I have no way of making an educated assessment. To be clear, I'm not really worried about it. My point was simply that I saw only intellectual curiosity in the grandparent to my original comment where the parent saw fear mongering.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- zamalek 6y ago> the press releases claim that they are similar to what is typical of other vaccines. They are much, much, worse but typically subside in a day and at most two. The side effects are bad enough that there is worry people won't show up for the second dose. Still going to have it, myself.
- dbbk 6y agoSorry, do you think the UK regulator approved Pfizer based on... a press release?
- tome 6y agoI suspect that gr2zr4 doesn't think that, rather that the press release (about the approval) has been released and the scientific papers haven't.
- jansan 6y agoThey certainly did not approve it on a study about long term effects of the vaccine.
- marricks 6y agoThe full data was just released like last week? There hasn’t been time to fully review it which may be the point. The US set a meeting date of 12/10 to decide on EUA so scientists had time to review the data.
- rootusrootus 6y agoAFAIK both the FDA and the MHRA have been getting data regularly from the various vaccine developers. They didn't have to wait for a final dump of data just to see any of it.
- scld 6y agoThe US meeting date is based on an arbitrary scheduling rule saying meetings like this must take place 15 days after request, or something to that effect. The FDA itself closely inspects data throughout the phase 3 trials so this review should just consist of looking at the details to see if something was missed, (ideally) not some brand new information come to light.
- marricks 6y agoWow, thanks for the info. I didn't know it was arbitrary scheduling. Seems like given the circumstances you'd hope they would just setup a meeting tomorrow.
- free2OSS 6y agoMedical isn't constrained to science. Healthcare professionals are allowed to use tradition, authority, and Art in combination with science. It's mind boggling to Engineers to hear this, but Medicine is older than the scientific method and physicians used Regulatory capture to prevent competition. I'd love a science based healthcare alternative.
- jbob2000 6y agoScience doesn't have all the answers. My partner recently got into a heated debate with a pharmaceutical company she was working for because they wanted something added to their standards of care document for a rare genetic disorder they developed a therapy for. She couldn't find a study to backup the claims that the medical team wanted to make in the document, but the lead doctor said that if this wasn't included, the patients would suffer and ultimately die. So she said "you need to prove this in a study so it can be included, otherwise you put the company at risk". To which the doctor said "We could do that, but it would take 3-4 years, and in the mean time, the patients we're caring for would go back home, the doctors would be missing the one key piece of advice, and then they'll all suffer and die". Science is slow. People are dying now.
- free2OSS 6y agoIs the issue that the doctor didn't make records of their patients? It sounds like they have data. Formal Peer review is good, but not necessary in science. Replication is necessary. And as a note, we can still have Authority based healthcare, but a science based healthcare system would be cheaper and more reliable.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jcims 6y agoI'm sure many, including myself, have experienced this issue very personally and tragically. Both parties were correct in your example. In my case I was the patient advocate and would argue very strongly on the side of the doctor. Your partners case has merit as well, however, as malpractice insurance and lawsuits are impacting healthcare costs and risk management decisions considerably.