5 ms·

>Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and

>Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of data and knowledge because industry suppresses negative trial results, fails to report adverse events, and does not share raw data with the academic research community. Not to derail the thread but this nicely encapsulates my reservations toward the COVID vaccines, and why I think mandates are egregiously unethical. The raw clinical trial data is still effectively a secret between pharma and the FDA, and both are under immense financial/political pressure to release a "safe and effective" product, not to mention the incestuous relationship between the ostensibly independent FDA and big pharma.

sebmellen 5y ago
I find it very discomfiting that anyone suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccine (by that I mean the COVID vaccine/spike protein in particular) is branded as anti-vax. I say this as a vaccinated person who caught a heavy bout of COVID. I suppose I'm grateful for the vaccine, but mandates scare me.
- specialist 5y ago
  Do you school-aged children? Pets?
- tricky777 5y ago
  as chistians say, "turn the other cheek". (labeling did not made much harm, dont get too ivested in that) reality is, that we can't have policy/public sentiment that is nuanced. (I heard it breaks the timecontinuum) Find the silver lining and move on. I'm just glad that, a lot of people are in pro-vaccine side overall. While in your case it is a bit of mob mentality (mostly appeal to authority + optimism + jugde_dissagreeing_side), in the long run "pro vaccines" is (even if only on average) leaps and bounds and couple of parsecs better than "no vaccines".
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
simonh 5y ago
To a point that's understandable, based just on trials it's reasonable to be skeptical of the results. However once the vaccines have been in mass distribution and there is copious evidence of their efficacy and the extreme rarity of adverse affects, I don't think it's reasonable anymore. The mandates only came in once enough of the population had been inoculated to make a requirement possible. At that point the initial trials are a footnote compared to the results from mass vaccinations. IMHO it's just not reasonable for that objection to carry any weight. There may be other reasons, of course.
- twofornone 5y ago
  >and the extreme rarity of adverse affects, I don't think it's reasonable anymore There's a major caveat here, sudden and obvious adverse effects are rare. The subtle and possibly long term ones are still unknown. It took some 5-10 years before Thalidomide was found to cause severe birth defects, for example.
  - _jal 5y ago
    > The subtle and possibly long term ones are still unknown So just say you won't take it and be done, because there is no mechanism that can satisfy you.
  - simonh 5y ago
    Thalidomide isn’t a vaccine so that hardly seems relevant. We have extensive experience with many vaccines across huge populations and no reason to expect these ones to be any more dangerous than the others. Also it seems somewhat unlikely that any possible side effects, if they were to manifest, could possibly be as bad as millions of deaths and tens of millions with long term complications . The vast majority of people objecting to covid vaccines have no history of vaccine denial, and no good reason to suspect the covid vaccines are particularly dangerous compared to the many vaccines they have accepted previously without a thought or any interest in their history, testing or method of action. It’s politically motivated from start to finish and has nothing to do with the medical facts.
  - fabian2k 5y ago
fabian2k 5y ago
The original clinical trials are essentially irrelevant now for the vaccines, we have a lot more data from using the vaccines in the real world now. Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this. The original trials are also simply outdated because the virus changed, we're several big variants later now. There are also more agencies than just the FDA that approved these vaccines, if you don't trust them specifically. Publication bias is a real issue, and I'm annoyed that all efforts to reduce it seem to be rather ineffective. The ideas behind requiring registration of trials is good, but it doesn't do much if you don't actually police the rules. But the COVID vaccines got such enormous amounts of attention that it really doesn't matter in this specific case.
- twofornone 5y ago
  > Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this But is the science being done "good" considering that the political and social pressures around reporting of negative results/adverse effects still exists? How do you get good data on adverse events if vaccine recipients don't even think to correlate strange symptoms x weeks or months post vaccination with the vaccine? How would you detect an autoimmune disorder with vague and nonspecific symptoms, for example, when doctors also are unwilling or unable to collect relevant data out of a combination of bias and ignorance? It's a double whammy, because of the novelty we don't know exactly what we're looking for, and because of stigma/political pressure we are arguably not looking hard enough. Being labeled an anti-vaxxer is effectively career and social suicide, how many researchers are willing to stick out their necks, especially when rigorous proof would take years of research and funding to aggregate?
  - fabian2k 5y ago
    There was a very rare side effect in the Astra Zeneca vaccine that was discovered quite quickly. Not in the original trials as they are simply not powerful enough to detect side effects that rare, but in later observations. We also pretty quickly figured out that the risk is age-related, and many regulating authorities reacted based on that and adjusted the recommendations. To me this is pretty good evidence that the existing mechanisms for detecting rare side effects work in general. One can argue about the details in this case on how exactly the authorities responded, and I think also reasonably disagree on how to weigh the risk/benefit in this particular case for specific age groups. But those are much more difficult questions based on inherently fuzzy data due to the low frequency of this serious side effect. But the detection itself worked well, and also produced very quick reactions.

sebmellen 5y ago

I find it very discomfiting that anyone suspicious of the COVID-19 vaccine (by that I mean the COVID vaccine/spike protein in particular) is branded as anti-vax. I say this as a vaccinated person who caught a heavy bout of COVID. I suppose I'm grateful for the vaccine, but mandates scare me.

specialist 5y ago
Do you school-aged children? Pets?
tricky777 5y ago
as chistians say, "turn the other cheek". (labeling did not made much harm, dont get too ivested in that) reality is, that we can't have policy/public sentiment that is nuanced. (I heard it breaks the timecontinuum) Find the silver lining and move on. I'm just glad that, a lot of people are in pro-vaccine side overall. While in your case it is a bit of mob mentality (mostly appeal to authority + optimism + jugde_dissagreeing_side), in the long run "pro vaccines" is (even if only on average) leaps and bounds and couple of parsecs better than "no vaccines".
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

simonh 5y ago

To a point that's understandable, based just on trials it's reasonable to be skeptical of the results. However once the vaccines have been in mass distribution and there is copious evidence of their efficacy and the extreme rarity of adverse affects, I don't think it's reasonable anymore. The mandates only came in once enough of the population had been inoculated to make a requirement possible. At that point the initial trials are a footnote compared to the results from mass vaccinations. IMHO it's just not reasonable for that objection to carry any weight. There may be other reasons, of course.

twofornone 5y ago
>and the extreme rarity of adverse affects, I don't think it's reasonable anymore There's a major caveat here, sudden and obvious adverse effects are rare. The subtle and possibly long term ones are still unknown. It took some 5-10 years before Thalidomide was found to cause severe birth defects, for example.
- _jal 5y ago
  > The subtle and possibly long term ones are still unknown So just say you won't take it and be done, because there is no mechanism that can satisfy you.
- simonh 5y ago
  Thalidomide isn’t a vaccine so that hardly seems relevant. We have extensive experience with many vaccines across huge populations and no reason to expect these ones to be any more dangerous than the others. Also it seems somewhat unlikely that any possible side effects, if they were to manifest, could possibly be as bad as millions of deaths and tens of millions with long term complications . The vast majority of people objecting to covid vaccines have no history of vaccine denial, and no good reason to suspect the covid vaccines are particularly dangerous compared to the many vaccines they have accepted previously without a thought or any interest in their history, testing or method of action. It’s politically motivated from start to finish and has nothing to do with the medical facts.
- fabian2k 5y ago

fabian2k 5y ago

The original clinical trials are essentially irrelevant now for the vaccines, we have a lot more data from using the vaccines in the real world now. Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this. The original trials are also simply outdated because the virus changed, we're several big variants later now. There are also more agencies than just the FDA that approved these vaccines, if you don't trust them specifically. Publication bias is a real issue, and I'm annoyed that all efforts to reduce it seem to be rather ineffective. The ideas behind requiring registration of trials is good, but it doesn't do much if you don't actually police the rules. But the COVID vaccines got such enormous amounts of attention that it really doesn't matter in this specific case.

twofornone 5y ago
> Of course that data is not randomized and double-blind, but because of the sheer numbers you can still do very good science on this But is the science being done "good" considering that the political and social pressures around reporting of negative results/adverse effects still exists? How do you get good data on adverse events if vaccine recipients don't even think to correlate strange symptoms x weeks or months post vaccination with the vaccine? How would you detect an autoimmune disorder with vague and nonspecific symptoms, for example, when doctors also are unwilling or unable to collect relevant data out of a combination of bias and ignorance? It's a double whammy, because of the novelty we don't know exactly what we're looking for, and because of stigma/political pressure we are arguably not looking hard enough. Being labeled an anti-vaxxer is effectively career and social suicide, how many researchers are willing to stick out their necks, especially when rigorous proof would take years of research and funding to aggregate?
- fabian2k 5y ago
  There was a very rare side effect in the Astra Zeneca vaccine that was discovered quite quickly. Not in the original trials as they are simply not powerful enough to detect side effects that rare, but in later observations. We also pretty quickly figured out that the risk is age-related, and many regulating authorities reacted based on that and adjusted the recommendations. To me this is pretty good evidence that the existing mechanisms for detecting rare side effects work in general. One can argue about the details in this case on how exactly the authorities responded, and I think also reasonably disagree on how to weigh the risk/benefit in this particular case for specific age groups. But those are much more difficult questions based on inherently fuzzy data due to the low frequency of this serious side effect. But the detection itself worked well, and also produced very quick reactions.