W
I want to see the same for vaccines as I do for drugs. Large scale, randomized, placebo controlled, long duration clinical trials with hard endpoints. Then I can review the efficacy and side effects profile of the vaccines and can make a decision there.
For reimbursement if I was the ruler I would make it very lucrative for corporations whose medicines ended up working in the clinical trials and being approved for marketing, by long patent life after the trials are completed and high reimbursements for the medicines. This is regardless of what type of medicine it is.
For multiple vaccines(US children are getting like 35+ vaccines), I would need to see placebo control, aka large samples of kids not getting any vaccines, to make the comparison. It has to be randomized too so that you can get a pure comparison. Since each company can't do that, the state has to fund those clinical trials with many vaccines vs. placebo. Ideally multiple trials across different countries and involving many independent institutions.
Anyway this all seems really extreme, but that is the standards the FDA wants to see before it will approve drugs. Its a reason new drugs will never be cheap - it does cost $1 billion+ to do these trials, and many trials the drug doesn't beat placebo or has an unacceptable safety profile.
Pro-vaxxers they say the vaccines are safe- but we will never know the safety until we see the clinical trials I am talking about. With statistics you can prove side effects with large scale trials. For example say 8% of people in the drug group and 3% of the people in the placebo group report headaches in the questionnaires during the trial. Then you can use statistical probability to calculate the chances that was 'random', and if there is a strong association you can say with confidence it is causative from the drug. Then additional clinical trials that show the same side effects the confidence becomes much stronger.
For me I wouldn't let pro-vaxxers vaccinate their children before these studies are done. On the other hand if a soy adult wants to use vaccines on himself without them being fully tested - then sure I am ok with that.
For reimbursement if I was the ruler I would make it very lucrative for corporations whose medicines ended up working in the clinical trials and being approved for marketing, by long patent life after the trials are completed and high reimbursements for the medicines. This is regardless of what type of medicine it is.
For multiple vaccines(US children are getting like 35+ vaccines), I would need to see placebo control, aka large samples of kids not getting any vaccines, to make the comparison. It has to be randomized too so that you can get a pure comparison. Since each company can't do that, the state has to fund those clinical trials with many vaccines vs. placebo. Ideally multiple trials across different countries and involving many independent institutions.
Anyway this all seems really extreme, but that is the standards the FDA wants to see before it will approve drugs. Its a reason new drugs will never be cheap - it does cost $1 billion+ to do these trials, and many trials the drug doesn't beat placebo or has an unacceptable safety profile.
Pro-vaxxers they say the vaccines are safe- but we will never know the safety until we see the clinical trials I am talking about. With statistics you can prove side effects with large scale trials. For example say 8% of people in the drug group and 3% of the people in the placebo group report headaches in the questionnaires during the trial. Then you can use statistical probability to calculate the chances that was 'random', and if there is a strong association you can say with confidence it is causative from the drug. Then additional clinical trials that show the same side effects the confidence becomes much stronger.
For me I wouldn't let pro-vaxxers vaccinate their children before these studies are done. On the other hand if a soy adult wants to use vaccines on himself without them being fully tested - then sure I am ok with that.
