Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
It is comforting (or not comforting) to know that a lack of understanding of science crosses all political stripes. For some reason republican voters get lumped in as anti-science, but the response from the anti-Trump demographic on vaccines is quite anti-science.
You won't need to trust Trump or the FDA. You'll be able to read the clinical trials yourself. The beauty of science is that you never need to appeal to authority in order to validate the conclusions. You are able to build your knowledge from the ground up to be able to interpret the data yourself.
We already know what the FDA is considering a successful study for licensing - 50% efficacy against disease. So the licensing metrics have been established already.
Indemnifications for vaccines has been around since the 80's. That isn't a new concept.
"Opposite of What Orange Man Thinks" is not a valid position on science (or anything for that matter).
|
In an ideal world, yes, everyone will be able to accurately read a scientific study and understand the conclusions which are being made but this is not at all possible right now. I have a PhD in organic chemistry and been part in numerous medical trials and even I have a hard time understanding papers outside of my immediate discipline. I agree that science is beautiful in its impartiality, but c'mon, we need to have sector experts who are trusted to accurately inform the masses. To be frank, inexperienced people reading the scientific literature and making their own erroneous conclusions is a big problem.