|
Post by steewee on Feb 1, 2022 10:51:10 GMT
Stage 3 trials were originally touted for 3 years but the treatment was released early under emergency use authorisation. How does money mitigate the loss of time? Surely it makes sense to you that you would want to test for adverse reactions over a short/medium/long time frame. All the resources on earth can't test for that. The methods used by Pfizer and Moderna had been in development for years. No testing steps were skipped, a lot of them were conducted on an overlapping schedule. You are wrong, the sequence used to create the treatment which targets the initial variants was only discovered early 2020, the phase 3 trials began in July 2020. An industry benchmark for Phase 3 is broadly 3 years, which was the original target. A decision was made to unblind early (why??) - and the drug has been released under EUA - primarily driven by no alternative treatments being available. I can understand ending a trial if the drug was only proposed for those at serious risk. But to pressure usage of the drug universally, driven by it providing sterilising immunity (obvious misinformation!!) without having concluded trials over the normal time duration is not something I'm happy with.
|
|
|
Post by steewee on Feb 1, 2022 10:57:27 GMT
If you are talking about the delivery mechanisms then that's different. There a number of types - genetic (mRNA).. viral vector... Inactivated virus / attenuated virus etc etc. These are just the way we elicit the immune response. What we use those techniques to elicit is the "trial" - in the case of the mRNA and viral vector that is the spike protein - subject to much ongoing debate.
Interestingly the FDA / Pfizer are throttling the release of data on their trials .. again, this is not transparent.
|
|