I'd like to draw your attention to an NEJM article in September of last year, just a few months ago regarding "CHIMs". These are controlled human infection models, that rely on injecting HEALTHY human volunteers with known pathogenic inocula to learn more about a specific disease. In this case it was Hepataitis C. This is now a disea…
I'd like to draw your attention to an NEJM article in September of last year, just a few months ago regarding "CHIMs". These are controlled human infection models, that rely on injecting HEALTHY human volunteers with known pathogenic inocula to learn more about a specific disease. In this case it was Hepataitis C. This is now a disease that 96% of cases can be essentially cured with one of three newly developed drugs.
Yet, despite that, and just as you perceptively note regarding CDC's view of all vaccines as 'safe and effective', the vast body of medical researchers view vaccines as 'absolutely essential' to the eradication of disease. ( e.g., the notion of "Zero Covid Tolerance").
This NEJM article begins with the premise that in order to eradicate a disease, a vaccine is absolutely required, and even for a disease which is close to 100 % treatable, a vaccine must be developed - to do what is actually impossible: "eradicate" a disease. Even if a number of humans will inevitably die as a result of the CHIM study .
Add to this the unbelievable irony that the authors of this article begin by bemoaning the virtual stoppage of vaccine research on Hep C due to the moratorium on primate models , which are deemed "unethical". But they conclude that it is ethical, in fact morally undeniable, to sacrifice an unspecified number of humans for the pipedream of 'eradicating' a disease.
Give a child a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.
I'd like to draw your attention to an NEJM article in September of last year, just a few months ago regarding "CHIMs". These are controlled human infection models, that rely on injecting HEALTHY human volunteers with known pathogenic inocula to learn more about a specific disease. In this case it was Hepataitis C. This is now a disease that 96% of cases can be essentially cured with one of three newly developed drugs.
Yet, despite that, and just as you perceptively note regarding CDC's view of all vaccines as 'safe and effective', the vast body of medical researchers view vaccines as 'absolutely essential' to the eradication of disease. ( e.g., the notion of "Zero Covid Tolerance").
This NEJM article begins with the premise that in order to eradicate a disease, a vaccine is absolutely required, and even for a disease which is close to 100 % treatable, a vaccine must be developed - to do what is actually impossible: "eradicate" a disease. Even if a number of humans will inevitably die as a result of the CHIM study .
Add to this the unbelievable irony that the authors of this article begin by bemoaning the virtual stoppage of vaccine research on Hep C due to the moratorium on primate models , which are deemed "unethical". But they conclude that it is ethical, in fact morally undeniable, to sacrifice an unspecified number of humans for the pipedream of 'eradicating' a disease.
Give a child a hammer, and everything looks like a nail.