[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 03:39 UTC ·
link
How large a trial do you want to run to capture "rare conditions"? Millions? Billions of participants? How long do you want to run trials? Years? Decades?
There is a process in place that’s meant to capture a certain number of potential problems. I didn’t make that process. The people who are making drugs safe designed the process. There is never zero risk of a treatment behaving badly, of course but when a drug gets fast tracked and doesn’t go through the regular approval process, it just hasn’t been proven to be safe by the regular standard of what experts deem safe.
It’s not very complicated.
trials ok => drug most likely ok
trials not done => we don’t really know.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:12 UTC ·
link
Operation Warpspeed addressed that by running a very large stage 3 trial. One reason that isn't normally done is the high cost of such a large trial.
Would that large trial have shown the cancerous effect of smoking?
If not, do you then agree that some possible adverse effects were not checked for and could have slipped through?
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:00 UTC ·
link
Don't know. But would standard smaller trials have captured it?
We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.
No, it is not about large trials. It is about changing the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.
I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 05:13 UTC ·
link
Who refused to acknowledge there could be adverse effects? I certainly was given information prior to vaccination that outlined possible adverse side effects.
> the attitude of medical practitioners and the media that refuse to acknowledge a vaccine could have caused an adverse effect.
In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?
Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.
I am talking about a case when there IS some adverse effect, after it happened.
In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 06:07 UTC ·
link
First step would be to collect data that is trust worthy regarding potential adverse reactions. And for that the barriers that stigmatize such reporting should be removed.
Basically, for starters, doctors should be free to report the events they see without getting labeled "Anti-vaccine doctor" or fear of getting their licence revoked.
When such barriers exist, no one could/should trust the product.
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-02 Thu 07:17 UTC ·
link
What don't you like about current reporting such as VAERS? Where do you see the barriers there specifically? Do you have examples of doctors getting their licenses revoked for reporting something?
When you got your vaccine, were you told to report at VAERS if you have any problems? Most people does not even know such a thing exists.
Even then the reports from that database is not really considered trust worthy. It is often dismissed with a statement that "anyone can report anything there!"
Anyone can report anything there and it is meaningless in any single specific case what the after affects of single vaccine applied to a specific person might be when extending to the population wide results of that vaccine.
There was a particular case in the UK where a vaccine was about to be administered, there was a fumble and a slight delay during which the patient went into cardiac arrest. Had that occurred after the vaccine was administered then that would go as a (possible) adverse reaction into VAERS and entered as such by the medical staff (who do know such a thing exists). As it happened before any vaccine was applied, it didn't.
VAERS isn't "dismissed" though - correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency than such events in the absence of a vaccine.
>correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency
Yes, then that report is rejected because it used data from VAERS..
[−]RandomLensman · 2026-07-03 Fri 06:44 UTC ·
link
What's an example of a report rejected because of the use of VAERS data itself?
It’s not very complicated.
trials ok => drug most likely ok
trials not done => we don’t really know.
We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.
I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.
In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?
Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.
In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.
Basically, for starters, doctors should be free to report the events they see without getting labeled "Anti-vaccine doctor" or fear of getting their licence revoked.
When such barriers exist, no one could/should trust the product.
When you got your vaccine, were you told to report at VAERS if you have any problems? Most people does not even know such a thing exists.
Even then the reports from that database is not really considered trust worthy. It is often dismissed with a statement that "anyone can report anything there!"
There was a particular case in the UK where a vaccine was about to be administered, there was a fumble and a slight delay during which the patient went into cardiac arrest. Had that occurred after the vaccine was administered then that would go as a (possible) adverse reaction into VAERS and entered as such by the medical staff (who do know such a thing exists). As it happened before any vaccine was applied, it didn't.
VAERS isn't "dismissed" though - correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency than such events in the absence of a vaccine.
Yes, then that report is rejected because it used data from VAERS..
It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)