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?

▲

qsera 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> 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.

▲

qsera 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

defrost an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Is this a general complaint about the lack of causality inherent in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)

▲

RandomLensman an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How would you suggest to establish causality?

▲

qsera 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

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 16 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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?

▲

RandomLensman 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Who refused to acknowledge there could be adverse effects? I certainly was given information prior to vaccination that outlined possible adverse side effects.

▲

d--b 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

▲

lixtra 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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?.