Do you have references for the Paxlovid paradox? How transparent is the FDA about what their reasoning is, and what they are doing during the approval process?
As is, some people are asking about specifics, that could make the slow approval look more reasonable. For example:
Did they actually stop the Paxlovid trial, or did they transform it from a “is this drug effective?” to “is this drug safe?” trial by giving the control group Paxlovid and continuing to monitor everyone?
Are they currently looking at manufacturing techniques, labeling, dosing, and such? Or are they just waiting until March to give a generic thumbs-up?
Overall, I’m wondering how strong a case could be made to normal people for whom “but safety!” is a strong counterargument to “30,000 deaths!”.
Do you have references for the Paxlovid paradox? How transparent is the FDA about what their reasoning is, and what they are doing during the approval process?
As is, some people are asking about specifics, that could make the slow approval look more reasonable. For example:
Did they actually stop the Paxlovid trial, or did they transform it from a “is this drug effective?” to “is this drug safe?” trial by giving the control group Paxlovid and continuing to monitor everyone?
Are they currently looking at manufacturing techniques, labeling, dosing, and such? Or are they just waiting until March to give a generic thumbs-up?
Overall, I’m wondering how strong a case could be made to normal people for whom “but safety!” is a strong counterargument to “30,000 deaths!”.
Do you not need a control group in a safety trial?