boooooooooo_cowboys t1_jdycwfd wrote

>"Misleading": Always good to point out when an author makes a claim that is not supported by their own data.

Be honest…how often do you see redditors actually engaging with the original article and giving valid critiques of the authors interpretations vs spitting out their knee jerk reaction to the headline? I’ve seen an awful lot of “poor communication” and “misleading” complaints that could have been cleared up by actually reading the article.


boooooooooo_cowboys t1_j5vq767 wrote

It’s largely based on whether or not your own immune system is able to clear the virus or not.

Catch measles? Your immune system will kill it and remember it well enough to protect you forever. All you need to do to make a great vaccine is to use killed virus.

If you’re talking herpes or HIV, your immune system can’t root that out and kill it once it’s in there. The only hope of vaccinating is to prevent every last viral particle you encounter from ever being able to enter any of your cells. That’s a much more difficult prospect.


boooooooooo_cowboys t1_its9ya3 wrote

>At this point, I feel like there's an ethical issue because are we not knowingly taking individuals with a life threatening illness and deliberately giving them a non treatment?

They wouldn’t be given no medical treatment at all. The control group typically gets whatever the standard treatment is for that condition, while the experimental group gets the new treatment (sometimes on top of the treatment that the control group is getting).

The question being asked by a clinical trial is rarely “does this drug work” it’s “is this drug better than the standard of care”. That’s kind of why the the staunchest defenders of Ivermectin for Covid treatment are wasting their time. It doesn’t really matter if technically there is some slight biological impact on the virus. If it isn’t better than current treatments (which are quite a bit better than they were in Spring 2020) than we have no use for it.