It was honestly such a treat, and I’m not even saying that because I organized it. Eric, Laura, and Kerollos absolutely killed it.

We got to talk about how we still do the best #epidemiology we can, even when life gets in the way of making perfect datasets (or even somewhat clean ones…) This is the hard stuff no one ever wants to discuss out loud.

My worry is that even if we do get that far, what's the damage already done and how irreparable is it to the entire scientific enterprise? It's unfathomable.

IMO it makes more sense to spend money targeting new pathogens for whom we don't have effective prevention than going back & spending money on remaking vaccines that we know work really really well and are incredibly safe.

Hope that helps!!

Also, it takes a lot of time & effort to make vax using these older platforms. So if a vax isn't effective, it doesn't make sense to continue using that platform. That's why we should be trying new tech for pan-flu & other novel pathogens - for whom we don't already have effective vaccines.

There are several reasons why we'd choose a certain type (more below). The important thing is vax for MMR, polio, etc are HIGHLY effective. This is NOT the case for flu vaccines + flu mutates rapidly, while MMR/polio don't. www.hhs.gov/immunization...

Great question! Older vaxs typically use either: killed pathogen ("inactivated" vaccines) or weakened live pathogen ("live attenuated"). MMR & oral polio use LA; injectable polio is inactivated. LA provide better protection but can cause strong reactions &/or mild infection (which can be contagious)

Yep, honestly the majority of the time it works. There are layers of oversight that make sure money is going toward institute priorities.

But sometimes you get this *intense mediocrity* that won’t go away & sucks up the resources for newer/different ideas.

BSC committees are composed of external experts from around the globe. But again, rarely do those ever result in closure of an ongoing study.

And Memoli is protected by the Old Guard at NIH, so he’s always been untouchable, even when leadership has been informed about his poor performance.

Once a protocol is approved, it’s basically off to the races. Very rarely are study approvals revoked at the SRCs I attended over 7 years as a former NIH employee. Every 4 years each investigator must submit to Board of Scientific Counselors review (akin to tenure committee review)…

This one specifically? No. Typically, intramural researchers have annual funding allocations derived from Congress that trickle down through the Institutes > Divisions > Labs > Sections/Units. There are internal scientific review committees that review/approve new protocols & conduct annual revs.

I don't know if I'd call it public health, more state of science in general, but everyone should read this one: bookshop.org/p/books/doct...

Not for that year of data, unfortunately. 😕

Hello! I know @johnkubale.bsky.social has been hunting down some of the earlier years. I only have phase 8.