51–60 of 60 posts
I think that what is sort of a sideline in this article is really a more important story. The Lancet and NEJM have completely debased themselves and destroyed centuries of institutional credibility in their handling of covid related research. I don't know where it goes from here but they have both burned themselves to the ground.
https://www.laprensalatina.com/venezuelas-vaccine-drive-sput...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you are right. So either way, these vaccines has not passed through proper safety evaluation. Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.
> Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required. Yes, it does.
Because that would be like saying, just because all you got is a binocular with very limited magnification/resolving power, satelites for jupiter does not exist, because you cannot see them through it.
Someone should name this fallacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you are right. So either way, these vaccines has not passed through proper safety evaluation. Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required.
> Just because something is not possible, does not make it any less required. Yes, it does.
This link overly politised and does not offer technical details about these problems. The Moscow Times article [1] makes a better job. [1] https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/08/20/leaked-sputnik-v-r...
Case in point: the doping scandal at the Sochi winter olympics. It was evil, yes, but you cannot help but admire how detailed and well-executed the operation was. They designed and built a whole building around the scheme! Supposedly, even the FSB (reincarnation of KGB) was involved. If not for a senior whistle-blower, I think we would never know.
I'm sure that if there was some top-level prikaz to cook the books, there would be no discernible flaws in the data whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same feeling here. Curiously enough the domain is called "For better science", where we'd have expected neutrality and impartiality to be the guiding principles of any report. Apart from that, it is hard to believe that any of the vaccine reports and clinical trials are unbiased. Unfortunately there are too many conflicts of interest and money on the table for any information to be taken at face value. The beauty of…
>The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction. Can you clarify what you mean by this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>The beauty of science is that now that the vaccines are out there it becomes easier to independently access them and move our knowledge further in the right direction. Can you clarify what you mean by this?
I mean that groups without any conflict of interest can gather population level data and evaluate for themselves how effective the vaccines are, and how likely it is for the clinical trial data to have been correct. There is a reason publications and conferences require disclosure of conflicts of interest, and that is because those with a conflict of interest are biased to find positive results (and hide negative res…
It won't work because for every such group, there will be 10 groups with high conflict of interest that can counter any finding of your hypothetical group, and journals with conflict of interests will reject the findings of that group, but instead give high visibility to the reports of high-conflict of interest groups..
Quickly no one will dare to research the said topic.
The last article about Sputnik that I read on HN stated that many countries are awaiting their promised doses, because Korea and India cannot produce enough of it.