3 ms·
> and it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them (not talking about the population as a whole). Right, and do you
by ashtonkem 5y ago
> and it can be hard to argue with them that vaccines are totally safe and effective for them (not talking about the population as a whole).
Right, and do you believe that a full release of the phase 3 trial data would convince them? I sure don't. Anti-vaxx is a fundamentally anti-expert stance, and most people have not logically convinced themselves into that position. Give them the full data set and I bet 9 out of 10 would ignore it, misinterpret it, read lies about it, or just assume that the data set is fake.
- diroussel 5y agoI don’t believe it will convince those that don’t want to be convinced. But I want to be convinced, and I want transparency in the science that my taxes are funding and in the enlightened society in which I wish to live. Transparency in science should include publishing raw data, as apart from re-creating the statistics in the report there is no other way the trial is repeatable.
- ashtonkem 5y agoThat’s moving the goal posts though. Now we’re balancing the privacy of those on the trial against your interest in seeing the data even though you’re already vaccinated. And you yourself don’t think that it would convince anyone that’s antivaxx. I don’t see the social benefit here, other than you’ll feel better. Furthermore, it’s not obvious full transparency will help. You’re almost certainly not a medical researcher, so it's not clear if you could do anything useful with the full data set. And our experience with VAERS shows that bad faith actors absolutely can and will lie about it. I see absolutely no upside to releasing the full data set, and a lot of downside for those who volunteered for the trials.