Quote:
Originally Posted by Wally86
It's definitely weird. The article flat out says they tested it on 42k people with no issues but intentionally avoided testing people who've had issues with allergic reactions to vaccines.
|
Just for reference: we give medications to people who have allergic reactions to those medications all the time because it can often be the case that people need those medications, and their allergy isn’t significant. We have had people who claim to have an allergy to epinephrine because it increased their heart rate. We have had people who say they are allergic to an antibiotic because it caused diarrhea and upset their stomach. This is a far cry from wrenching nausea, keeling over from abdominal pain, breaking out in hives or a rash, and even further from having a severe allergic reaction like angioedema or something that might cause a collapsed airway or death.
Humans can’t be used as guinea pigs where they are knowingly hurt or put in harm’s way. There is a difference between adverse effects caused by a medication that is applicable to a narrow group versus a broad group, or reactions that can be predicted and thus avoided and ones that would be hard to predict. For instance, people with known reasons to avoid vaccines because they have immuno deficiencies or reactions will be avoiding these vaccines, so there is no reason to include them in a study. They will know not to take the vaccine. Contrast that with hydroxychloroquine, as an example, where the scientists/doctors removed people from the study who had a prolonged QTc or who developed a prolonged QTc or who deteriorated and/or who moved to the ICU during the study, then later claimed there was no adverse effects, as if it was safe and only resulted in improved outcomes when this was clearly not the case. The results of the study could be applied to people in a hospital setting who are receiving multiple tests and ECGs per day at best, but the claim that it is safe would be misleading for the general population, if people started to take hydroxychloroquine as an outpatient for instance .
Circling back to this study, if the vaccine caused wide spread allergic reactions in groups that normally don’t have allergic reactions to vaccines then that would be mentioned or would cause the medication to fail clinical trials, but again, there is no point in torturing people that they already know would be tortured when their adverse effects aren’t specific to this vaccine.
Just an example to make it clear: Say scientists were testing a new Italian dish for enjoyment, but it had gluten in it so celiac people would be excluded and people with gluten sensitivities might also decide to avoid the meal, or they could eat it if they normally have mild GI symptoms like getting an intestinal sunburn (maybe one exposure isn’t the end of the world, but repeated exposures would be destructive). The fact that these groups avoided the meal and didn’t participate in the study wouldn’t change the results about whether the majority of people either enjoyed or did not enjoy the experience of eating this new Italian meal. If the scientists included them then not only would it be unethical, but it wouldn’t make sense. It would be like a celiac patient going to Olive Garden then writing a bad Yelp review that the bread and pasta gave him an adverse allergic reaction.