Oh right you're talking about that initial dosing error. Thing is, even if you ignore that data entirely, the efficacy remains sufficiently high to use in a clinical setting, so again your point does not make sense to me
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
Tell me how those errors doesn't fuel distrust on novel platforms. They were rushed. That they worked, it was not because of the process. If this is the new standard for medical research, god help us.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @federicolois
Personally, I find it much more reassuring when people are transparent about their mistakes than when they simply won't admit anything went wrong, ever. That's why I am a bit skeptical of Sputnik, while not at all worried about AZ, Sinovac, Pfizer etc
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Transparency is a must. It is a sanity check, not a guarantee of anything. Process is important, and while it was a lucky mistake, shows also the lack of through study of dosing effects. Not a good sign at all.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @federicolois
And yet, these studies have been FAR more transparent than any previous pieces of research, scrutinized far more closely, and the mistakes identified and explained much more quickly. Like I said, some of the best trials ever conducted
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
Again, that you are touting that this is the best you got reflect pretty poorly on the whole field/industry. Then you expect to say that people should trust the health industry/practitioners? You see why I said what I said? That there are worse things is not an excuse.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @federicolois
I'm saying your position doesn't make sense - if you trust the industry enough to get other vaccines, you should trust the COVID-19 studies MORE
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
I cannot trust c19 RCTs, because they are full of problems. And to be true, this has also irreparably hurt my trust, from now on I will research far more than I used to. Trust is not gained, it is lost. Which was my point all along.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @federicolois
They definitely aren't "full" of problems - they had specific issues, and in general were quite transparent about those problems. Indeed, AZ was probably the worst at this and I still think they've demonstrated very well that the vaccine works and is safe
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @GidMK
That part only time will tell, because we won't be able to know from the now aborted trials. I just hope that is the case, because the alternative in this case would be quite bad.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes
All I can say is that I've read the protocols for 3 of the vaccines (AZ, Pfizer, Moderna), as well as maybe a dozen pre-rollout and another dozen post-rollout studies, and I would say they are some of the best studies ever done and remarkable for their transparency
-
-
Replying to @GidMK
They can be the best ever done, it doesn't mean that they were executed as such. The problem is that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but it practice there is.
0 replies 1 retweet 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.