I know of one instance of attempted suppression: Stöcker gave his alleged vaccine to a bunch of people and someone brought a legal action against him for running an unregistered clinical trial.
If that’s what you mean: it seems to me that if someone breaks the law, then taking the legal steps that are generally taken against people who break the law isn’t obviously properly described as “suppressing his efforts”, even if he claims he did it for the Greater Good. (It sounds as if you reckon he didn’t break the law because he’s a doctor; maybe you’re right—I don’t know anything about German law—but it seems to me unlikely that anyone would bother making laws against unregistered clinical trials if you could work around them simply by having a doctor administer the drugs, since surely that happens in pretty much all clinical trials anyway, and I’ve got to assume that whoever brought the case against Stöcker has some idea what the law says.)
If instead you mean that the German agencies didn’t actively work with Stöcker to bring his alleged vaccine to proper clinical trials, mass production, etc., then again it seems to me that this doesn’t deserve the name of “suppression”. I bet there are thousands of people claiming to have better ways to deal with COVID-19, and I bet they’re all writing to institutions like the PEI demanding that things be done their way. What algorithm are you proposing they should have executed that would have told them to put time and effort into working with Stöcker but not with dozens of cranks? And how are you so sure that Stöcker isn’t a crank himself? Again, so far as I can tell we have only his word for it that his alleged vaccine is safe and effective, even on the small sample of people he allegedly tested it on.
Basically it’s saying that if we see the most informed people doing X then that’s no evidence that doing X is a good thing to do.
If “basically “means “not”, I guess. I don’t see much connection between what I actually said and what you say I “basically” said.
If you mean that in addition to the RadVac folks’ general argument that their alleged vaccine should be safe and effective, the fact that they have chosen to actually take it is a little bit more evidence, then I guess I agree: but (obviously, I think?) it’s not much further evidence. (It tells me that they probably find their own arguments convincing, which isn’t exactly a surprise.) And I don’t see any obvious reason why I should consider the RadVac folks “the most informed people”.
If that’s what you mean: it seems to me that if someone breaks the law, then taking the legal steps that are generally taken against people who break the law isn’t obviously properly described as “suppressing his efforts”,
Of course laws are supressing people from engaging in certain actions whether or not those laws are desirable laws, laws are supressing.
In this case, it seems that while it’s completely legal for a doctor to brew anything together and give it to their patients it’s not legal to run a clinical trial without registration.
If RaDVaC folks would publish the evidence that they gathered for their vaccine it’s easy to argue that they did run a clinical trial for the vaccine which they seems to desire to avoid. Given that they are not allowed to provide that kind of evidence publically they have to be Straussian about it.
it seems to me unlikely that anyone would bother making laws against unregistered clinical trials if you could work around them simply by having a doctor administer the drugs
There’s a difference between having a doctor administering the drugs and being a doctor administring drugs. Doctors are allowed to give their patient any brew they make but there are rules that regulate the conditions under which you can give a brew to a doctor to administer to his patients. There are some rules that regulate what doctors can do with scheduled substances but those aren’t applicable here.
Secondly, rules for Phase I clinical trials exist for protecting clinical trial participants. They don’t exist to prevent people from doing experiments on themselves and their family.
Saying that a doctor who brews a vaccine for themselves in March and give it to a total of five people he cares about before September is engaged in doing a clinical trial seems to me like a huge stretch.
What algorithm are you proposing they should have executed that would have told them to put time and effort into working with Stöcker but not with dozens of cranks?
If you have a pandemic and a biotech billionaire contacts you with wanting to help you treat him different then dozens of cranks that also want to contact you. Especially if the company they founded helps you with fighting the pandemic (they provide COVID-19 tests).
If you mean that in addition to the RadVac folks’ general argument that their alleged vaccine should be safe and effective, the fact that they have chosen to actually take it is a little bit more evidence, then I guess I agree: but (obviously, I think?) it’s not much further evidence.
Skin in the game is a good way to handle problems of information assymetry and trusting expertise.
Just because a drug is FDA approved doesn’t mean that it has an effect or is safe either. If I saw a FDA official or a Ranbaxy employee telling his doctor to make sure that he gets a brand name drug instead of one from Ranbaxy you can take that as good evidence that made you shouldn’t trust the FDA approved Ranbaxy drug.
What do you mean by “suppressing”?
I know of one instance of attempted suppression: Stöcker gave his alleged vaccine to a bunch of people and someone brought a legal action against him for running an unregistered clinical trial.
If that’s what you mean: it seems to me that if someone breaks the law, then taking the legal steps that are generally taken against people who break the law isn’t obviously properly described as “suppressing his efforts”, even if he claims he did it for the Greater Good. (It sounds as if you reckon he didn’t break the law because he’s a doctor; maybe you’re right—I don’t know anything about German law—but it seems to me unlikely that anyone would bother making laws against unregistered clinical trials if you could work around them simply by having a doctor administer the drugs, since surely that happens in pretty much all clinical trials anyway, and I’ve got to assume that whoever brought the case against Stöcker has some idea what the law says.)
If instead you mean that the German agencies didn’t actively work with Stöcker to bring his alleged vaccine to proper clinical trials, mass production, etc., then again it seems to me that this doesn’t deserve the name of “suppression”. I bet there are thousands of people claiming to have better ways to deal with COVID-19, and I bet they’re all writing to institutions like the PEI demanding that things be done their way. What algorithm are you proposing they should have executed that would have told them to put time and effort into working with Stöcker but not with dozens of cranks? And how are you so sure that Stöcker isn’t a crank himself? Again, so far as I can tell we have only his word for it that his alleged vaccine is safe and effective, even on the small sample of people he allegedly tested it on.
If “basically “means “not”, I guess. I don’t see much connection between what I actually said and what you say I “basically” said.
If you mean that in addition to the RadVac folks’ general argument that their alleged vaccine should be safe and effective, the fact that they have chosen to actually take it is a little bit more evidence, then I guess I agree: but (obviously, I think?) it’s not much further evidence. (It tells me that they probably find their own arguments convincing, which isn’t exactly a surprise.) And I don’t see any obvious reason why I should consider the RadVac folks “the most informed people”.
Of course laws are supressing people from engaging in certain actions whether or not those laws are desirable laws, laws are supressing.
In this case, it seems that while it’s completely legal for a doctor to brew anything together and give it to their patients it’s not legal to run a clinical trial without registration.
If RaDVaC folks would publish the evidence that they gathered for their vaccine it’s easy to argue that they did run a clinical trial for the vaccine which they seems to desire to avoid. Given that they are not allowed to provide that kind of evidence publically they have to be Straussian about it.
There’s a difference between having a doctor administering the drugs and being a doctor administring drugs. Doctors are allowed to give their patient any brew they make but there are rules that regulate the conditions under which you can give a brew to a doctor to administer to his patients. There are some rules that regulate what doctors can do with scheduled substances but those aren’t applicable here.
Secondly, rules for Phase I clinical trials exist for protecting clinical trial participants. They don’t exist to prevent people from doing experiments on themselves and their family.
Saying that a doctor who brews a vaccine for themselves in March and give it to a total of five people he cares about before September is engaged in doing a clinical trial seems to me like a huge stretch.
If you have a pandemic and a biotech billionaire contacts you with wanting to help you treat him different then dozens of cranks that also want to contact you. Especially if the company they founded helps you with fighting the pandemic (they provide COVID-19 tests).
Skin in the game is a good way to handle problems of information assymetry and trusting expertise.
Just because a drug is FDA approved doesn’t mean that it has an effect or is safe either. If I saw a FDA official or a Ranbaxy employee telling his doctor to make sure that he gets a brand name drug instead of one from Ranbaxy you can take that as good evidence that made you shouldn’t trust the FDA approved Ranbaxy drug.