mansr

I stopped reading at the part where he spends a full page on semantic games around the precise meaning of the word vaccine, misspelling the name of a famous dictionary in the process. This person is clearly not being honest about his intentions.

It's the standard method, and I see nothing wrong with it. What you suggest (deliberate exposure) is called a challenge trial. This is normally considered ethical only when an effective cure (e.g. antibiotics) is available. Even so, there are plans to conduct such a trial in the UK, and there's no shortage of volunteers. We'll see if they get approval.

Nothing is misleading. Half the participants got the vaccine, the rest placebo, before going about their usual lives. Now, a few months later, 95 cases have been confirmed across both groups. Of these, 90 had received the placebo and only 5 the vaccine. If the vaccine didn't work at all, the split would be roughly 50/50. A somewhat effective vaccine might result in a 70/30 split, and so on.

In the Pfizer trial, all the subjects in the interim evaluation had symptomatic infection confirmed by PCR test. I'm not sure about Moderna, but it's likely to use the same or similar methods.

One factor speeding up the phase 3 trials is the high rate of infections. Since the evaluation is done at a set number of confirmed cases among the test subjects, this happens much sooner for covid than it would be for just about anything else at this time.

Another factor is money. The covid vaccine trials have done some testing steps in parallel that would normally be done sequentially to avoid wasting money should it fail along the way. So yes, more risks are being taken, but they are financial, not clinical.

The largest percentage increase may have been in that age group, but since the base rate is very low, it still amounts to few deaths overall.

This isn't the final evaluation. There will be another at ~150 cases. The numbers may seem small, but this is enough for the purpose of deciding for or against approval. Anything over 80% effectiveness would likely be approved, so it doesn't matter whether the true value (insofar one exists) is 90%, 95%, or something in between. It's useful regardless.

Both groups have (approximately) the same size, in the tens of thousands. The first evaluation is done when 90 or so cases have been confirmed, not knowing which group they belong to. The blinding of these subjects is then unsealed, in this case revealing that 90 of the 95 confirmed infections occurred in the control group. This distribution means the vaccine has been highly effective at preventing infection.

Verifying the expected immune response (antibodies) is (part of) phases 1 and 2, if I've understood things correctly.

Early polio vaccines did.

Following that method will make you a Scientologist, not an expert.

Niels Bohr, widely regarded as an expert, has said that an expert is someone who has made all the mistakes which can be made, in a narrow field. If you want to become an expert, you should presumably pick a suitable narrow field and start making mistakes.