[ikk157]

@ikk157

actually there are other effective ways too that are used to test potential toxicity in humans. and yes, they can be much more reliable too. i don't know what the reality is out there in this regard. also i must agree that animal testing is nowhere near close enough to being sufficient.

but they do cell line, tissue, organ model tests.. these are more reliable i hear.

last phases of trial are for testing effectiveness. they don't need you to get infected by the pathogen. once body generates enough and keeps that up and once those generated antibodies are shown to be effective on samples outside the body, that is enough. it mitigates doubts about both safety and effectiveness.

this is not psychology....

Aha i see... this is much different from what I initially thought... what i had in mind was that these trials consisted of vaccinating the volunteers, then checking how well the vaccination protects them from the virus by simply intentionally infecting them with... guess i was wrong.

This proves that it’s actually much less risky than I initially anticipated, that’s great news! 

Just one thing sparked some doubt in me, just because the body is producing enough antibodies, doesn’t necessarily prove that they’re actually effective to fight the pathogen. For all we know, even though their number is sufficient, they might not be capable of doing what they’re supposed to, no matter how much of said antibodies are present. So judging the vaccines’ effectiveness based on the numbers of antibodies produced alone isn’t very reliable in my opinion. I’m sure there has to be more to it! These trials take a lot of time, so there’s for sure more things being tested/monitored. 

But again, I may be wrong... i hardly have any  experience in this field. This is why i love this thread, it’s a great learning opportunity... one that’s much needed!