Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 257 posts

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#31

Post by srcreigh »

YXNjaGVyZWdlbgo wrote: post #10
diroussel wrote: post #3

The BMJ seems to be on good form. First publishing the whistle blower account of pfizer [1], and now this call for raw vaccine trial data. I commend them on this approach, and can only hope that the vaccines are as safe and effective as we have been told. [1] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 - "Covid-19: Researcher blows the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer’s vaccine trial"

I can only recommend this article about bmj: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-t...

Yup. I'm not sure how many non anti vax people who comment in support of BMJ actually read the original article.

If you are them please reveal yourself and explain how you found nothing wrong with the original article. Most of these comments in the threads just seem like tired knee jerk anti big media / anti vax memes.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#32

Post by ceejayoz »

choward wrote: post #21
ceejayoz wrote: post #4

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... has some stuff to say about the author (about 2/3 the way down), including signing a petition doubting that HIV causes AIDS. > Indeed, Doshi has history of playing footsie with the antivaccine movement, amplifying antivaccine conspiracy theories, downplaying the severity of influenza and thus feeding antivaccine narratives, using sleight-of-hand to downp…

I love how people attack the character of anyone who says anything even remotely against the pharmaceutical industry and their narratives. They like to find some sort of evidence that they are one of those "anti-vaxxers" and think that discredits them. Now they don't have to debate anything. How about you argue with the points made in the article? Do you disagree with anything in the article? Is their dreaded "misinf…

> Do you disagree with anything in the article?

Absolutely, yes. I believe there to be an acute public health interest in not letting antivax nuts run wild on raw data like they do with VAERS, despite clear disclaimers not to do so. Additionally, as a participant in a couple of trials, I see a significant benefit to careful review before the release of data that might inadvertently reveal my identity, conditions, medical history, etc.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#34

Post by walterbell »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
daenz wrote: post #11

>The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key…

> Serious question: if the raw data could potentially undermine public trust in the US government, can it be classified as a matter of national security? No, probably not. The government doesn't really have the authority to classify information generated by private entities like Pfizer barring specific legislation. The closest you'd likely come is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act , but that allows…

> The government doesn't really have the authority to classify information generated by private entities like Pfizer barring specific legislation.

They can classify patents at will.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#35

Post by mike_d »

ceejayoz wrote: post #15
daenz wrote: post #11

>The BMJ supports vaccination policies based on sound evidence. As the global vaccine rollout continues, it cannot be justifiable or in the best interests of patients and the public that we are left to just trust “in the system,” with the distant hope that the underlying data may become available for independent scrutiny at some point in the future. The same applies to treatments for covid-19. Transparency is the key…

> Serious question: if the raw data could potentially undermine public trust in the US government, can it be classified as a matter of national security? No, probably not. The government doesn't really have the authority to classify information generated by private entities like Pfizer barring specific legislation. The closest you'd likely come is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invention_Secrecy_Act , but that allows…

> The government doesn't really have the authority to classify information generated by private entities

Pfizer is a defense contractor. It is pretty standard boilerplate that when you receive DoD funds the government can restrict access to information, even unrelated to the products or research directly attributable to that funding.

Not to say that I think the government would actually do that, just that they could.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#36

Post by diroussel »

fabian2k wrote: post #14

At this point the original phase 3 trials are pretty much irrelevant, we have so much more data now from the actual use of the vaccines. They really play no role at all now. In terms of effectivness we're three major SARS-CoV2 variants further, and for looking at rare side effects we have billions of doses now compared to tens of thousands in those trials. I'm all for putting pressure on everyone in Science to publis…

It's hard to analyse the data from treatments, as treatments don't have a control group. Trials are designed with control groups, placebos and double-blind process to gather data and then analyse it.

We may have loads of data from real people being treated, but good luck trying to analyse it in a scientific way.

We need effective vaccines, and we need to be able to trust them. Just treating people with a vaccine doesn't always give that trust and confidence.

(I hope I got my medical terminology right, I'm not a clinician, but have been close to covid-19 related medical research)

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#37

Post by dang »

Shartacus wrote: post #19
ceejayoz wrote: post #4

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/what-the-heck-happened-to-t... has some stuff to say about the author (about 2/3 the way down), including signing a petition doubting that HIV causes AIDS. > Indeed, Doshi has history of playing footsie with the antivaccine movement, amplifying antivaccine conspiracy theories, downplaying the severity of influenza and thus feeding antivaccine narratives, using sleight-of-hand to downp…

Quoted post unavailable.

We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines.

Crossing into personal attack and snark, besides being against HN's rules, has the effect of discrediting your own point of view. That is a poor trade to make in exchange for a momentary bit of venting. Not only that, but if your view happens to actually be correct, then it has the side effect of discrediting the truth, which is not in any of our interests. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...

Can you please not create accounts to break the HN guidelines with?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#38

Post by planetsprite »

cyanydeez wrote: post #28
fabian2k wrote: post #14

At this point the original phase 3 trials are pretty much irrelevant, we have so much more data now from the actual use of the vaccines. They really play no role at all now. In terms of effectivness we're three major SARS-CoV2 variants further, and for looking at rare side effects we have billions of doses now compared to tens of thousands in those trials. I'm all for putting pressure on everyone in Science to publis…

this stuff just smacks of iignorance and attempts to continue tompoliticize clear public health concerns. i am sure there will be a red herring in all the data that will cash a small enough shadow. but this jibbering is about dragging science down to the level of far right ignorance, which is the onlymplace concervatives can win.

Speculation is made either way without datapoints. What's the harm in being transparent if at worst some spurious (but provably spurious) correlations mislead a few people already prone to mistrust? Higher transparency would also dissolve a lot of the claims that the pharmaceutical companies are "hiding" something regarding the actual effectiveness of their vaccines and therapeutics.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#39

Post by fsociety999 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #16
uvesten wrote: post #6

It seems there has to be some amendments to rules about releasing raw, anonymized trial data when the state is sponsoring development of the drug. Also, how can Pfizer claim that their "study" ends in 2023? Several hundred million people have already received their vaccine, unaware that it's part of a study where the clinical data is not even accessible to their doctors...

> Also, how can Pfizer claim that their "study" ends in 2023? Because it does. https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04848584 > Several hundred million people have already received their vaccine, unaware that it's part of a study Because it's not. Use under the EUA and subsequent approval is separate from and in parallel with continuing studies.

> Because it's not

That is misleading at best. It absolutely is part of an ongoing clinical trial regardless us if it is authorized for emergency use.

How many people who were given the vaccine were told that it is part of an ongoing clinical trial, authorized for emergency use, and the data from the trial won’t be available for years? I suspect a very small percent.

Re: Covid-19 vaccines and treatments: we must have raw data, now

#40

Post by choward »

ceejayoz wrote: post #32
choward wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how people attack the character of anyone who says anything even remotely against the pharmaceutical industry and their narratives. They like to find some sort of evidence that they are one of those "anti-vaxxers" and think that discredits them. Now they don't have to debate anything. How about you argue with the points made in the article? Do you disagree with anything in the article? Is their dreaded "misinf…

> Do you disagree with anything in the article? Absolutely, yes. I believe there to be an acute public health interest in not letting antivax nuts run wild on raw data like they do with VAERS, despite clear disclaimers not to do so. Additionally, as a participant in a couple of trials, I see a significant benefit to careful review before the release of data that might inadvertently reveal my identity, conditions, med…

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN