bentlimerick
bentlimerick t1_j0cvsgm wrote
Reply to Is there research comparing flu and RSV infection rates between covid vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts? by rowanskye
RSV is most dangerous towards the very young and/or immunocompromised infants who can't even get the mRNA vaccine.
And as with most vaccines for rapidly changing respiratory viruses, it's not about infection rates. It's about the hospitalization and mortality rates. The hospitalization rates and mortality rates are higher among the unvaccinated for both Covid-19 and the flu.
The people who got vaccinated against COVID-19 tend to be the same people who get vaccinated against the flu. They also tend to be the same people wearing masks again.
Likewise, the people who did not get vaccinated against COVID-19 tend to be the same people who did not get vaccinated against the flu. They also tend to be the people who never really wore masks.
My guess is you also got a flu vaccine this year while your family members did not.
And since the people who don't get vaccinated tend to be the people who wind up taking up a disproportionate amount of space in the hospitals and morgues due to both flu and COVID-19, there's going to be a correlation between vaccination against COVID-19 and protection against influenza based on behavior alone.
One of the things that makes these theories about vaccine harm so compelling is that our follow-up for clinical trials is still very limited. We haven't really changed things since before the internet. Back when everything was in manila folders it was really hard to follow someone for more than a few years.
Now there are trial registry and results databases and disability claims databases that are reasonably expected to still be around in another 50 years.
But, since we've never bothered to connect those things together, it's hard enough to follow people for 15 years, let alone 50.
bentlimerick t1_j0x1z9d wrote
Reply to Gene therapy gel heals decades-old wounds in trial for blistering skin disease. Researchers find that a gel tested in patients with a life-threatening blistering skin disease helps wounds heal. The gel — the first topical gene therapy — awaits FDA approval. by Zee2A
Those are amazing results. Those confidence intervals for complete wound healing are awesome.
It's a shame that clinical trial results aren't given in a standard report card style that always shows the complete response rates and confidence intervals.
Some of these "butterfly" patients might even be able to get a decent hug thanks to these treatments.
There's a line at the end of the paper "Longer and larger trials are warranted to determine the durability and side effects of B-VEC for this disease." that kind of misses the point.
Trials just don't last that long. Fifteen years is about as long as they come.
The number of pediatric patients and the fact that they need this to work for their whole life and the fact that this could dramatically increase their life expectancy really does highlight how we need a way to follow them for another 50 years or more.
It's crazy that we have modern medical technology like gene therapy but we're still doing clinical trial tracking as if the internet and databases weren't invented and everything is being kept in manilla folders.
Kids have social security numbers. Kids with this kind of condition often get submitted for disability through social security. All of these patients were registered to a clinical trial that is tracked by the NIH. It really shouldn't be that hard whether with an opt in or an opt out system to set things up so that trial arm information can be checked against disability information on an annual basis.