Should we take another hard look?
-
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:13 last edited by
I can even imagine him declaring it approved himself on Twitter.
Or saying on twitter that it has shown safety and efficacy but the FDA/deep state is trying to keep it ‘suppressed’ to help Biden.
-
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:13 last edited by
Other countries will be out in front of us. We can benefit from their results for decision making.
-
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:16 last edited by
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
-
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:28 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
Yes and no. Both China and a Russia have an ‘approved’ vaccine. But they’re basically doing phase 3 with a different name - ‘limited rollout’.
True, they’ll hit a bigger N and will show safety and efficacy earlier. But (a) we won’t necessarily be able to trust their data and (b) the drugs aren’t identical, so it doesn’t help us approve ours any quicker.
I am talking about pressure to move fast. Results will go viral even if people challenge them. We going to just sit there? Really? I doubt it.
-
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:30 last edited by
Listen to Moderna’s, AZ’s, or Pfizer’s earnings calls. Nobody’s just sitting around.
-
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 15:33 last edited by
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician. -
wrote on 23 Aug 2020, 23:58 last edited by
As if on cue.
But it’s the AZ. Probably a wiser choice, it’s the one the Russians stole so it’s gotten more testing.
-
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Should we take another hard look?:
When we politicize science that heavily, we're done for. What's next, pro/con covid vaccine along political lines?
I can almost see it happening, because Trump will likely be pushing for pre-election approval of the mRNA vaccine, which will cause the (not entirely unjustified) counter reaction about it being a brand new untested technology etc.
What that scenario has going against it is that Trumpists seem to make up a good chunk of the 50% who say they won’t take a Covid vaccine at all.
I think Trump is going to push for large trials, not a full roll-out. I could be wrong.
There’s an n=30k trial going on now. Though the endpoints are listed at 2 years (Oct 2022, given the lag time of getting 30k people stuck from a 7/20 start), the FDA has made lots of noises about granting pre-approval at the 6 month mark if all is going well.
I think Trump will push hard for a late October approval, or at least some creative rebranding of the trial status to make it seem like a pre-election victory.
wrote on 24 Aug 2020, 00:00 last edited by jon-nyc@jon-nyc said in Should we take another hard look?:
I think Trump will push hard for a late October approval, or at least some creative rebranding of the trial status to make it seem like a pre-election victory.
From the CNBC piece:
One option, according to the FT report, would involve the U.S. Food and Drug Administration awarding “emergency use authorization” for the vaccine, which was developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca.
-
wrote on 24 Aug 2020, 02:45 last edited by jon-nyc
Funny thing is AZ hasn’t even started recruiting for their big n=30k P3 trial in the US.
They do have an n=5k trial in Brazil though which started dosing last quarter.
-
wrote on 24 Aug 2020, 03:39 last edited by
Oh wow. The administration told GOP lawmakers they would approve a vaccine before the election but weren’t sure which one. AZ is just considered the best candidate.
-
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician.wrote on 24 Aug 2020, 04:10 last edited by@Axtremus said in Should we take another hard look?:
@Jolly said in Should we take another hard look?:
At an old drug?
Why give "the media" power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?
For that matter, why give any politician power over what drugs to promote, what drugs to bury?Let the medical establishment do their thing and you pay attention to the medical establishment. The CDC, the FDA, the WHO, the revered academic journals ... pay attention to those.
Yeah, from time to time, they make mistakes.
But they are still a lot than "the media", a lot better than just about any politician.Lad, if you don't think politics enter into the world of Big Pharma, you are naive.