You seem to have the elitist attitude of the ‘educated.’ I haven’t said anything about my experience and nor should I need to but I can assure you it’s much different than you assume. You are residing headlong in the echo chamber; because you’re a ‘medical student’ your opinion and thought on the subjects is correct. This is the shame that we live in. You drip arrogance with how you talk and that’s unfortunate. You assume that my position is inferior. That’s ok, you remain shadowed in your tower.
My points are quite valid and shared by many who keep an open mind.
It’s amusing that they say it’s unethical to study a group of unvaccinated individuals health outcomes versus ones that are vaccinated. Where is the ethics violation? You are not harming someone who chooses not to vaccinate so it’s unethical to show that the vaccines are harming those who get them?
The Stanford prison experiment was an ethics violation. Comparing non vaccinated to vaccinated is absolutely not an unethical situation. Can you explain your point of view for its ethics?
I'm not even going to pretend I think we're equal. That's a joke. But it's not about formal education or being a medical student. It's about being able to look at things objectively, that's a skill that can be gained with or without the ivory tower.
Your points are shared mostly by stoners and "woke" middle-upper class white women.
You asked for a double-blind control trial mate... that's not simply studying 'a group of unvaccinated individuals'... how do you not get that? Those studies have been done, they're just retroactive chart reviews and population studies. We have that data, it's one of the biggest sets of data that show that things like herd immunity work, but require thresholds of vaccination near 92-95%.
The study you've asked for means you need to take people, split them into two groups and then administer injections to each group. One group gets a vaccination one group gets a placebo. That means people don't know if they have or haven't been vaccinated. Which means they don't know their risks, nor do their schools or families or friends. This is the first ethical issue, but it's not even the biggest.
The biggest ethical issue is that to do that above you'd have to ask people to forgo the protection a vaccination can offer in order to participate in the trial. Now the only group of people who'd consider doing that are anti-vaxers but they probably won't be too happy knowing 50% of them will get the vaccination. So we're back to the normal population of normal people who aren't batshit crazy.
Research cannot be done in such a way as to risk or cause harm to patients or participants (unless you practice on yourself). This is why so many trials are cut short. Once it's clear which of two methods being tested are clearly superior it's unethical to continue the trial... because you're denying half your trial arm the best possible medical care.
Now I'm done lecturing. This information is year one of any science degree. If you'd really done your research you'd know this. Since you so clearly despise formal education go to coursera, or Khan achademy or just wikipedia and look up HOW research is conducted.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit