[jlbooker]

The trials lasted long enough to gather the statistical evidence needed to show that the vaccine prevented the trial group from becoming infected (and that it was highly unlikely the trial group did better due to random chance). When that point was reached, the trial was deemed sufficient and was ended/unblinded. When people are dying by the thousands every day (in the USA alone), how much longer would you have wanted the trial to go on? We found out what we wanted to know. The vaccine worked. There's no need to carry on and ask the placebo group to continue with the risk of being infected.

[incrudible]

I'm not going to argue the ethics, I'm going to argue that these trials are under-powered and insufficient to make bold claims about vaccine efficacy. The trials are in fact not completed until the end of the year, but there is little further information to be gained after dissolution of the placebo group.

Remember, the people defending Ivermectin also argue that it's unethical to do further trials when it is "clearly effective" (according to under-powered studies). Consider that pharma companies deliberately avoid follow-up trials to avoid finding results that don't align with business interest. Remdesivir and Molnupiravir both looked promising in early trials, but were found to be rather ineffective (and dangerous) in later trials.

I don't have a problem with administering drugs/vaccines based on good faith and speculative benefit if that is declared appropriately. Just don't dress it up as "scientifically validated".

[joshuamorton]

Be precise in your claims.

The evidence for covid vaccines is that they provide robust protection for months, and then protection may begin to wain.

Evidence for ivermectin is that, ehhh it might have some effect.

Those aren't the same. Trying to dress them up as similar is wrong. These two things as re not equally scientifically validated.

[incrudible]

> The evidence for covid vaccines is that they provide robust protection for months, and then protection may begin to wain.

Hone your own advice and be precise in your claims.

There is good evidence that two doses of the vaccine were protective for at least three months, against the variants dominating 2021.

It's 2022, there is a new escape variant about and we endorsed teenagers to get a booster shot to "protect" themselves from this new variant - based on what evidence exactly?

> Evidence for ivermectin is that, ehhh it might have some effect.

There is lots of weak evidence that it's highly effective and some weak evidence that it does nothing. This adds up no good evidence for anything.

> Those aren't the same. Trying to dress them up as similar is wrong. These two things as re not equally scientifically validated.

That's not the point. The question is, do you apply the same standard to both? Do you reject weak observational data as evidence? If so, a lot of the claims about vaccine effectiveness (here and now) are not supported by evidence.

[joshuamorton]

> Hone your own advice and be precise in your claims.

I was. The claims I made are backed by strong randomized controlled trials.

> There is good evidence that two doses of the vaccine were protective for at least three months, against the variants dominating 2021.

And also good RCT based evidence that a third dose (or perhaps just a more recent dose) provides robust protection against delta and omicron variants. The precise level of protection is different because the variants are all a little different, but the conclusion of "boosters provide robust immunity against variants" is strongly supported.

So yes, there is good evidence that boosters provide protection. There is not good evidence that ivermectin does anything.

> It's 2022, there is a new escape variant about and we endorsed teenagers to get a booster shot to "protect" themselves from this new variant - based on what evidence exactly?

To be clear, there are two reasons you run studies

1. To validate effectiveness

2. To validate safety

There's not really a reason to believe that the boosters will be less effective in teens. In fact, there's strong reason to believe that they'll be just as effective as in everyone else. You really don't need a study for this.

What you might need a study for is validating safety, which is why we break out pregnant people, teens, young kids, and adults. Those groups can have different safety impacts (kids and teens weigh less, so doses might need to be smaller to be safe!).

Except that we already know that the exact substance we're sticking in teens is safe in teens, because its half of the exact same thing as in the initial doses. So if your concern is safety, its fine, and if your concern is efficacy, well we have strong RCT evidence of efficacy. We also generally speaking know that ivermectin is safe. But, we have no evidence to its efficacy.

So I apply precisely the same standard.

[incrudible]

Please provide a link to the RCT measuring efficacy against Omikron.

> Except that we already know that the exact substance we're sticking in teens is safe in teens, because its half of the exact same thing as in the initial doses. So if your concern is safety, its fine, and if your concern is efficacy, well we have strong RCT evidence of efficacy.

My concern would be risk/benefit. As far as I'm aware, not everyone gets a half dose for the booster, but even then there's a risk for Myocarditis with the third dose, among other things. What is the additional risk reduction for an Omikron infection in a healthy young (male) teenager that has already been vaccinated with two doses? Is it really worth the risk of side-effects? There is no good data on this.

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

[ericb]

> Please provide a link to the RCT measuring efficacy against Omikron.

Even if that's the hill you've chosen to die on, Delta is still out there and at a high prevalence especially in North America and you've admitted that the vaccine is effective but wanes, so a booster makes sense in that cost benefit regardless.

[cloutchaser]

And they don’t have any incentive to do so. Most governments, on almost any political side have decided vaccines are the solution full stop. They don’t want to be proved wrong and have no incentive to investigate. Drug companies also have no incentive.

I agree with your last sentence a lot, we can do a lot of things and administer a lot of things, just don’t say “an attack on it is an attack on science”

[Vrondi]

One of the things that has made it hard to believe the drug companies behind the new vaccines are trustworthy is the way that they and the medical establishment has continuously claimed that these vaccines have good long-term safety, when long-term safety wasn't even something that was being tested for, and a long term hasn't yet elapsed. Such claims were being spouted by government and medical people even before the EUA was finalized, which makes the entire thing seem quite untrustworthy to anyone who was looking at the actual situation and research.