Yeast-based vaccines seem cool, and ingestion based vaccines rather than injection increases the availability, but also counterfits. But as someone said in the article. You cannot draw conclusions from two test subjects.

Does it make pregnant women miscarry? Does it make them sterrile? How does it affect those with different blood types? how does it interact with other types of commonly taken medications? Or even food for that matter.

Don't you think it would be good to know those things ahead of time? Because that's what the "whole official process" is about.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

I'd rather not be test subject number 3. But if others do then I'm OK with that, and over time as more people try them we can get a sense of their safety and effectiveness. Are side effects like that common with vaccines?

[–] Atomic@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

You need lots of test subjects, control groups, "blind tests". And someone need to manage everything so it can be done in a controlled environment.

It's really not as simple as just having a bunch of people testing it. You introduce placebo that way. Which the "official" process eliminates through their control groups and by injecting nothing but saline solutions while telling you it's the real deal.

Or rather. You are made aware you may or may not recieve the real deal. You just don't know.

Those side effects are not common. Because they would be unacceptable and "eliminated" before moving on to human trials. I put that in quotation marks because there's probably a non zero risk. Just astronomically small.

Example. People have been observed getting drunk on non alcoholic drinks. But they're not really drunk, they just think they are.