I can't help but notice similarities with certain conservative attacks on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans people.
> A general subjective notion that the evidence "isn't good enough" with no reference to the level of evidence that is typically used to approve other treatments with similar risks and benefits
> The focus on randomized controlled trials as the only acceptable form of evidence, despite (or because of) their expense and length
> Common and easy-to-collect indirect markers of effectiveness (presence of antibodies, lower reported suicidality) are against them, so they insist on using only rare, hard-to-collect direct markers (prevented illnesses, reduction in completed suicide attempts) despite lacking any reason to believe the results will be different
> The insistence on unnecessary, lengthy trials or tests for treatments that are time-sensitive, to the point of overrunning the time when they ought to be administered (RCTs for flu vaccines that would delay them past flu season, vs insisting on a large and arbitrary minimum number of assessments before allowing puberty blockers such that puberty starts before the patient is approved). For the anti-treatment side in both cases, a long enough delay is effectively a victory that doesn't require them to prove any of their points.
So, what can we draw from these tactics? They want to make their opponents waste time and resources on long, difficult trials (the longer the better,) because every day it goes on is a day that treatment is delayed or a "temporary restriction" can continue. Plus, if they need more time, they can always push the arbitrary standard of evidence they demand arbitrarily higher. They can always demand more trials, or more specific and difficult-to-collect data.
But on some level, they know they can't say "THIS is the study that will prove vaccines/HRT are unsafe" because they understand that the results will probably not go in their favor (or, that they'd get caught if they faked it).
It seems like they understand that the evidence is against them, but that stalemate is in their favor.
This has been an extremely common tactic for a while. When they can't attack something head on because it's either politically impossible, or because it would actually be illegal, they got at it side ways.
Prior to Roe v Wade getting over turned we saw this all over certain states. They couldn't actually "ban" abortion since it was constitutionally protected, but they could make access nearly impossible. Now it seems like a similar approach is going to be taken with vaccines.
I can't help but notice similarities with certain conservative attacks on puberty blockers and hormone therapy for trans people.
> A general subjective notion that the evidence "isn't good enough" with no reference to the level of evidence that is typically used to approve other treatments with similar risks and benefits
> The focus on randomized controlled trials as the only acceptable form of evidence, despite (or because of) their expense and length
> Common and easy-to-collect indirect markers of effectiveness (presence of antibodies, lower reported suicidality) are against them, so they insist on using only rare, hard-to-collect direct markers (prevented illnesses, reduction in completed suicide attempts) despite lacking any reason to believe the results will be different
> The insistence on unnecessary, lengthy trials or tests for treatments that are time-sensitive, to the point of overrunning the time when they ought to be administered (RCTs for flu vaccines that would delay them past flu season, vs insisting on a large and arbitrary minimum number of assessments before allowing puberty blockers such that puberty starts before the patient is approved). For the anti-treatment side in both cases, a long enough delay is effectively a victory that doesn't require them to prove any of their points.
So, what can we draw from these tactics? They want to make their opponents waste time and resources on long, difficult trials (the longer the better,) because every day it goes on is a day that treatment is delayed or a "temporary restriction" can continue. Plus, if they need more time, they can always push the arbitrary standard of evidence they demand arbitrarily higher. They can always demand more trials, or more specific and difficult-to-collect data.
But on some level, they know they can't say "THIS is the study that will prove vaccines/HRT are unsafe" because they understand that the results will probably not go in their favor (or, that they'd get caught if they faked it).
It seems like they understand that the evidence is against them, but that stalemate is in their favor.
Yep. No evidence will ever be enough.
This has been an extremely common tactic for a while. When they can't attack something head on because it's either politically impossible, or because it would actually be illegal, they got at it side ways.
Prior to Roe v Wade getting over turned we saw this all over certain states. They couldn't actually "ban" abortion since it was constitutionally protected, but they could make access nearly impossible. Now it seems like a similar approach is going to be taken with vaccines.