Re: Pfizer or Oxford?
Jayde,
Several things here. Some of the articles I have sent, you will see that many medical professionals say that challenge trials wouldn't accomplish anything, and would be unethical because all the complications and longterm effects of covid aren't well known. This is unethical for several reasons, as I said you can't be informed and understand the risks if said risks aren't known. Second, you have to offer some sort of compensation. Once you do this, you open a whole new can of worms, as people who lost their jobs, or need money will enroll and disregard the fine print. Third, viruses are known to modify DNA. What precaution would you take to make sure this person's experementation results wern't passed on to their child if they decided to have children? The only way is forced sterilisation of anyone participating, but this generates more issues. What about if the person becomes perminently disabled and requires lifelong care? Who is going to cover that or carry it out? Is it ethical to ssubject the family to providing care for something that wasn't necesary? Do you see where I am going with this? As for rats, I didn't say it was acceptable to experiment on them, but it is clearly the lesser of two evils. The ethics regulations insure they don't suffer unnecesarily. But this is very much preferable to human experimentation. A rat has less potential than a human, so a death of a rat is less significant than the death of a human.
As for MRNA vaccenes, you summed up what I was trying to say. I was saying that to the poster, who admits they have their pick of both vaccenes, the oxford and fizer, that if I were in their shoes, I would take the Oxford one, I said the MRNA vaccene was newer, and the possibility was there that any longterm implications are unknown. Some people on this thread try to paint a black and white picture and to villify me as anti-vaccene, which is completely false.
Ethin, enjoy being a scientist's lab rat then. I personally wouldn't participate in any clinical trial for a condition I don't have, because the unknown risks don't justify the gains in my book.
Jayde, I think there are better ways than shortcutting the medical approval process.First, we could have a serious infectious disease and pandemic preparation budget, instead of spending a trillion on a jet that won't even fly, we could develop newer antibiotics that don't have the side effects of the current ones, and are more targeted, antiviral drugs that actually kill off viruses, instead of only stopping them from dividing, and that lack the serious downsides of the current ones, and vaccenes for broad classes of viruses, so when a pandemic hits, you don't have to rush a vaccene or drug, and you have something ready that works effectively for treatment or prevention.
-- Audiogames-reflector mailing list Audiogames-reflector@sabahattin-gucukoglu.com https://sabahattin-gucukoglu.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/audiogames-reflector
