United States | News & Politics

3419 readers

879 users here now

Welcome to !usa@midwest.social, where you can share and converse about the different things happening all over/about the United States.

If you’re interested in participating, please subscribe.

Rules

Be respectful and civil. No racism/bigotry/hateful speech.

No memes.

Post news related to the United States.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

simsymbiote@midwest.social

Type1@midwest.social

exposingfash@midwest.social

RFK Jr. wants all new vaccines tested against a placebo. Doctors say that isn’t good science (www.pbs.org)

submitted 1 month ago by Sunshine@piefed.ca to c/usa@midwest.social

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] thann@lemmy.dbzer0.com 12 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So we infect people with a deadly disease on purpose?

[–] Postimo@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 month ago

Only for him to call for another trial when the obviously good vaccines provably work.

[–] Bigfish@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 1 month ago

It's unethical and dangerous to let people contract serious and deadly diseases without their knowledge (that's the "double blind" part of a trial) when there is a safe and effective alternative. If you want placebo, just look at literally anyone who didn't get the vaccine.

This isn't just bad science, it's a calculated means to kill and maim millions.

[+] notfromhere@lemmy.one -12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (5 children)

I hate to say it, but this one I agree with RFK Jr on. You have to have a control group. If it’s ethically wrong to not treat with the standard of care then make the placebo group opt-in to placebo so they know they are not getting the current standard of care.

You can still do the compare vs current standard of care, but also need the placebo. Also diseases can evolve so re-comparing to baseline should be a must to make sure the current standard is actually helping like we think it does.

[–] mako@lemmy.today 17 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 5 points 1 month ago

This is the exact quote I was thinking of

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If someone knows they receive the placebo, then that undermines it being a placebo. You already have a control group...people who choose not to take the vax.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.one 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Only if psychological effects could impact the result. That doesn’t apply with vaccines, does it?

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

There can be psychological side effects, such as pain or anxiety.

[–] notfromhere@lemmy.one -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

So not efficacy

[–] piccolo@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago

I dont think so. Not sure what you are trying to say here.

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 11 points 1 month ago

Do you have any relevant credentials? Epidemiology? Virology? Public health?

[–] dream_weasel@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I think we gotta go a step further then and also ensure exposure to the disease the vaccine is purported to mitigate to some relevant sample group that includes (of course) part of the control group.

It's just good science.

[–] SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social 3 points 1 month ago

The control group is the untreated population outside of the study. I'm not just speaking figuratively. The standard experimental design is to state the null hypothesis (i.e. the vaccine does not lower infection rates), and look for evidence to reject it. That evidence would be a statistically-significant rate of infection that's lower than the untreated population. Note that this explicitly defines a control group.

Really, too much is made of the placebo effect, such that it frequently turns into magical thinking, that a person can avoid illness with a healthy set of beliefs. "I don't believe the medical quacks who say I 'snapped my femur.' I'm going for a walk!" Nonsense. The double-blind RCT is good for, e.g., drugs that treat symptoms, the experience of which is subjective. It's not needed for objectively measurable conditions. Infectious disease agents have no respect for state of mind, and you get the disease whether you believe in it or not, as we saw during the pandemic.