OMG! I cannot believe these people persist on doing this. The issue of vaccinating pregnant women for diseases of negligible importance should be one of ethical principles and not scientific considerations. It is unacceptable to intentionally expose a pregnant woman to a potentially harmful intervention as an "experiment". This study sho…
OMG! I cannot believe these people persist on doing this. The issue of vaccinating pregnant women for diseases of negligible importance should be one of ethical principles and not scientific considerations. It is unacceptable to intentionally expose a pregnant woman to a potentially harmful intervention as an "experiment". This study should not have been approved by an IRB. Then, after the fact, the results are so bad. They insist on reporting RRR, which was bad anyway. The ARR was negligible; out of > 3,500 participants per group, only 24 and 56 subjects had the "outcome of interest". The shame, as usual, is that authors continue to conclude that their results are so good... in order to have their articles published. It is disgusting.
OMG! I cannot believe these people persist on doing this. The issue of vaccinating pregnant women for diseases of negligible importance should be one of ethical principles and not scientific considerations. It is unacceptable to intentionally expose a pregnant woman to a potentially harmful intervention as an "experiment". This study should not have been approved by an IRB. Then, after the fact, the results are so bad. They insist on reporting RRR, which was bad anyway. The ARR was negligible; out of > 3,500 participants per group, only 24 and 56 subjects had the "outcome of interest". The shame, as usual, is that authors continue to conclude that their results are so good... in order to have their articles published. It is disgusting.
Your comment about the IRBs is good. We need to have IRBs that do their job with integrity.