With respect to the AstraZeneca vaccine, I am guessing people think my objection is to science by press release, and that I want a peer-reviewed publication. But no, not really. What I want is reliable and definitive evidence to inform policies impacting millions. 1/4
-
Show this thread
-
If the answer is that AstraZeneca needs to go back and add a new half-dose arm to their trials so that they can prospectively evaluate its efficacy in diverse subgroups, then we have to carefully consider the value of a peer-reviewed publication at this moment. 2/4
3 replies 19 retweets 246 likesShow this thread -
We’ve written about this in
@NEJM. Basically, there are risks to publishing results that are “promising but inconclusive.” Though it seems slower at the time, in the long run it is better to generate the conclusive evidence while we still can. 3/4https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsb1905390 …2 replies 38 retweets 283 likesShow this thread -
I am very encouraged by the prospect of multiple safe and effective vaccines, particularly cheaper and easier to store vaccines, but these results have major policy implications. And implications for the public’s trust! We have to make sure we get it right. 4/4
12 replies 25 retweets 341 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @nataliexdean
Yeah the problem here isn’t science by press release. It’s a misleading, confusing press release—and that’s the best case scenario—and non-transparent and uninterpretable results. Given the stakes, this is inexcusable. They should step up very soon and provide answers.
2 replies 1 retweet 27 likes
There was a dosing error, and here’s what we’re doing going ahead. Fine. Not this confusion. Not now.
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.