(no title)
hedgew | 5 years ago
Bioethicists who have forbidden challenge trials in vaccine trials have firmly taken the no-action stance in the trolley problem.
A normal phase 3 trial gives the vaccine to volunteers and waits for them to get sick (or not). A challenge trial is the same, but infects the volunteers intentionally, which significantly speeds up the trial and reduces the sample size needed.
The trolley is running over thousands of people every day, and by flipping a switch you could reroute it to another rail where only a few people would be at risk. The modern bioethicist stance is that flipping this switch is unacceptable. Maybe waiting for people to randomly fall ill instead of acting is more holy and sacred — or perhaps "natural".
bryanrasmussen|5 years ago
Thalidomide changed our relationship with new medicines for ever.
It took five years for the connection between thalidomide taken by pregnant women and the impact on their children to be made. Not only did thalidomide change people’s lives, but it resulted in tighter drug testing and reporting of side-effects.
emteycz|5 years ago
Can you imagine what happens if the antivax crowd gains actual arguments? I don't want to.
ghthor|5 years ago
perl4ever|5 years ago
The mathematical issue is that a vaccine is given to everybody, so even if it has a very small rate of harm, it can be greater than the illness it's meant to prevent, if the incidence of the illness is small enough.
I'm not against vaccines in general, but they have to be incredibly safe to be worthwhile, assuming all lives are equal. Much more so than regular medication that is only given to sick people. Inherently, there has to be a higher bar.
cblconfederate|5 years ago
looperhacks|5 years ago