An NIH scientist’s maverick approach reveals legal, ethical, moral, scientific and social challenges to developing potentially life-saving vaccines.
  • Atlas_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4·
    1 month ago

    Critics say this needs more testing - cool sure let’s make that happen! I don’t think its wrong to publish data from 1 or 2 people, so long as you don’t present that data as definitive.

  • InabaResident@feddit.orgEnglish
    1·
    1 month ago

    Really interesting approach, but I must agree with the critics that this needs much better testing. The bureaucracy may be annoying, but we do rigorous testing for a reason. The harm that could be done by unsafe, untested vaccines is not just problematic because of the people that it could harm directly, but because of the already growing number of people who are unwilling to vaccinate themselves and their children out of (unfounded) concerns over safety.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.todayEnglish
      1·
      1 month ago

      There are excellent, proven reasons why we have to a lot of rigorous testing on drugs. Sure it takes a long time, but when it has been properly tested, then it will be valuable to humankind beyond measure, forever. That’s worth waiting for and doing it right.

      And there are times when the process can be shortened in an an emergency, like Covid. I remember years ago, when they were doing a double-blind test on one of the first successful AIDS drugs, and it became apparent that the new drug was working incredibly well. It made it obvious who had been given the placebo. The new drug was so successful, that they determined that it would be morally wrong to deny it to the others in the test who were getting the placebo, and were continuing to get sicker, so they ended the study and gave everyone the new drug.