Medical experiments on humans.

[Svenne]

An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.

Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.

But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/

https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

[Jethro_uk]

Post by Svenne
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?

I think there needs to be a distinction between "legal" and "useful".

It may well be legal. But the scientific community might not recognise
the results, rendering them a waste of time.

I recall the chap who gave himself the heliobacter infection to
(correctly) prove the connection (which had previously been pooh-poohed
by the medical experts as "nonsense") between that infection and stomach
ulcers was not a popular chappie and a lot of scientists wanted to ignore
his work.

[The Todal]

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

I am sure there are formal protocols that have to be observed before a
drug can be tested on humans, and I don't think those can be waived just
because there's a pandemic.

Lest we forget:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35766627

When Rob Oldfield signed up for a drugs trial at Northwick Park Hospital
in 2006, he thought he had found a way to earn some easy money, and do
his bit for medical science. But the trial went disastrously wrong,
leaving him and five other healthy men fighting for their lives.

And lest we forget another experiment:

https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study

The Tuskegee experiment began in 1932, at at a time when there was no
known treatment for syphilis. After being recruited by the promise of
free medical care, 600 men originally were enrolled in the project. The
men were monitored by health workers but only given placebos such as
aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact penicillin became the
recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947. PHS researchers convinced
local physicians in Macon County not to treat the participants, and
research was done at the Tuskegee Institute.

[d***@gmail.com]

Post by The Todal
I am sure there are formal protocols that have to be observed before a
drug can be tested on humans, and I don't think those can be waived just
because there's a pandemic.

But those protocols are there to reduce the risk. The risk of not trialling this medicine is significant. The protocols are created by regulatory bodies and relaxed if the case is strong enough as was done during the Ebola crisis.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by The Todal

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

I am sure there are formal protocols that have to be observed before a
drug can be tested on humans, and I don't think those can be waived just
because there's a pandemic.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35766627
When Rob Oldfield signed up for a drugs trial at Northwick Park Hospital
in 2006, he thought he had found a way to earn some easy money, and do
his bit for medical science. But the trial went disastrously wrong,
leaving him and five other healthy men fighting for their lives.
https://www.history.com/news/the-infamous-40-year-tuskegee-study
The Tuskegee experiment began in 1932, at at a time when there was no
known treatment for syphilis. After being recruited by the promise of
free medical care, 600 men originally were enrolled in the project. The
men were monitored by health workers but only given placebos such as
aspirin and mineral supplements, despite the fact penicillin became the
recommended treatment for syphilis in 1947. PHS researchers convinced
local physicians in Macon County not to treat the participants, and
research was done at the Tuskegee Institute.

Nowadays any such (ie the Covid-19 expt. postulated) would have to go to
an ethics committee, a national quango approved committee of lay and
disinterested professionals. They would look at the experiment
considering; whether the subjects were to be fully informed of the
risks; whether the scientific benefit was so great as to justify those
risks; and whether there was any obvious way of doing it more safely.
Plus other issues relevant to the particular experiment.

If an such a nationally approved committee accepte the proposal it is
very unlikely that a criminal charge could be brought for carrying it
out. Civil liability is another thing, but one part of ethical
approval is usually that such liabilities can be funded, by the
experimenters' institution or insurance.

[Brian Reay]

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

Interesting points.

However, testing on humans isn't new. There conditions of such tests are
very 'tight' and the people involved well briefed.

Various drug (including vaccines) have been tested on humans for many,
many years.

Likewise, taking blood, well specifically blood and extracting the
plasma, from those who have recovered from the current virus has been
approved here etc. The plasma is treated and used to treat those
infected. It has been used in other cases of infection etc. True, it
hasn't been reported it has been used but that doesn't mean it hasn't.
The press are far to busy reporting numerous supposed tests/treatments
etc which are supposedly being ignored.

[Fredxx]

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

I would have thought primates would have been the first port of call
before humans.

Evidence has already been collated that reinfection is unlikely from
acquired immunity after an initial infection.

[Michael Chare]

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

[TTman]

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Or those in danger of dying... 'would you like to try this experimental
drug '? You're probably going to die anyway so 'what's to lose' ...
Possible or nor possible ?

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by TTman

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Prisoners serving life maybe.

Post by TTman
Or those in danger of dying... 'would you like to try this experimental
drug '? You're probably going to die anyway so 'what's to lose' ...
Possible or nor possible ?
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

It's not a drug, but a vaccine - usually too late if you already have the disease.

[Fredxx]

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Prisoners serving life maybe.

I've often thought this source of human guinea pigs should be considered.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready
-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Prisoners serving life maybe.

I've often thought this source of human guinea pigs should be considered.

They'd be pretty good for heart and lung transplants too, providely they
were well fed and exercised adequately.

[Svenne]

Post by Roger Hayter
They'd be pretty good for heart and lung transplants too, providely they
were well fed and exercised adequately.

They should be made to exercise on treadmills like in the 1800's. With
modern technology the treadmills could be connected to electrical
generators and they would provide a supply of environmentally friendly
energy. They would in effect be converting gruel into electricity.

[Fredxx]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready
-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Prisoners serving life maybe.

I've often thought this source of human guinea pigs should be considered.

They'd be pretty good for heart and lung transplants too, providely they
were well fed and exercised adequately.

I was thinking the promise of an early release, under parole conditions
naturally. If the risk of being let out early is less that the benefit
they might bring.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Fredxx

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Fredxx

Post by R. Mark Clayton

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready
-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

Prisoners serving life maybe.

I've often thought this source of human guinea pigs should be considered.

They'd be pretty good for heart and lung transplants too, providely they
were well fed and exercised adequately.

I was thinking the promise of an early release, under parole conditions
naturally. If the risk of being let out early is less that the benefit
they might bring.

It is regarded as unethical to recruit subjects to an experiment with
any danger with excessive payment or coercion. "Excessive" is
stretched a bit, but early release of prisoners is unlikely to be
acceptable. Without ethical approval it is difficult to publish in a
respectable journal.

[The Todal]

Post by Michael Chare

Post by Svenne
An Oxford professor has said her team working on a vaccine for Covid-19
has developed a vaccine which could be ready by September this year and
has an 80% chance of working. What is necessary now, according to the
professor, is human testing to verify if the vaccine works as expected.
Her team is searching for a suitable geographical location where the
vaccine can be tested on volunteers who have a high chance of being
naturally infected.
Deliberately infecting an unknowing group of people with Covid-19 would
be the optimum way of testing the vaccine, but this would be medically
unethical and probably illegal as well.
But what if the people to be infected, being fully aware of the medical
experiment being performed and all its implications, had volunteered to
be deliberately infected with Corona-19 and then injected with the
experimental vaccine. Would such a medical experiment be legal?
https://www.itv.com/news/2020-04-11/coronavirus-vaccine-could-be-ready-by-
autumn-says-oxford-professor-sarah-gilbert/
https://tinyurl.com/r28aown

There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.
They would probably have to be people living by themselves.

They would probably have to be ignorant about the coronavirus or
extremely optimistic by nature.

Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

[s***@gowanhill.com]

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?

As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery whether you get a ventilator.

Owain

[Mark Goodge]

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?
As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery whether you get a ventilator.

At the moment, we have enough ventilators for everybody who needs one.

That may change, of course, if the number of hospital admissions rises
considerably. But as things stand, we do seem to be supressing the
pandemic sufficiently to keep numbers below capacity.

Mark

[The Todal]

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?
As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery whether you get a ventilator.

At the moment, we have enough ventilators for everybody who needs one.
That may change, of course, if the number of hospital admissions rises
considerably. But as things stand, we do seem to be supressing the
pandemic sufficiently to keep numbers below capacity.

Statistically, about one half of the patients who are put on ventilators
survive, and about half die.

So being guaranteed a ventilator does not by any means guarantee your
survival. It's all down to the strength of your lungs and your immune
system. Boris was lucky.

If someone says to you "might as well get the virus now, get it over
with, you're young and strong" you should be very afraid. The statistics
might favour you, but some young people with no underlying health
conditions do die.

[Brian Reay]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?
As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery
whether you get a ventilator.

At the moment, we have enough ventilators for everybody who needs one.
That may change, of course, if the number of hospital admissions rises
considerably. But as things stand, we do seem to be supressing the
pandemic sufficiently to keep numbers below capacity.

Statistically, about one half of the patients who are put on ventilators
survive, and about half die.
So being guaranteed a ventilator does not by any means guarantee your
survival. It's all down to the strength of your lungs and your immune
system. Boris was lucky.
If someone says to you "might as well get the virus now, get it over
with, you're young and strong" you should be very afraid. The statistics
might favour you, but some young people with no underlying health
conditions do die.

The vast majority of those infected either have no, or very mild, symptoms.

Next come those who have symptoms which are noticeable but do not require
hospital admission.

The above accounts for about 80 % of cases, it seems to vary, some say 60%,
but our ( the UK) numbers suggest more like 80%, perhaps a bit less.


The remaining 20% require hospital care.

Perhaps a quarter, 5% of the original infection pool, ICU.

As you say, about half will, sadly, die.

Someone will leap in and start talking about underlying conditions and
these are certainly a factor in whether you may/may not make it. As is age,
general fitness, even possible blood group and BCG status. However, while
each death is important at an individual level, we are looking at overall
numbers.

So, getting back on track, the now 2 - 3 % of the original infection pool
which die, include some who are young, fit, etc, and the elderly, those
with underlying conditions....... None of which makes their lives
unimportant of course.

If we now turn to the REVISED Imperial numbers, para phrasing : Under
20,000 deaths, probably significantly so, 2/3 of which would have happened
anyway within 9mth.

Contrary to some claims, it wasn’t suggested the revision was due to the
introduction of the Lockdown etc., simply a revision / review of the
assumptions/ model which had not been peer reviewed.

We’ve passed 10k deaths. I’m not going to play games predicting what the
total will be but the average for flu over the last 5 seasons is 17k. It
peaked in 2014 ( the year the jab mix was predicted incorrectly- not a
criticism) at about 28k.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Brian Reay

Post by The Todal
If someone says to you "might as well get the virus now, get it over
with, you're young and strong" you should be very afraid. The statistics
might favour you, but some young people with no underlying health
conditions do die.

The vast majority of those infected either have no, or very mild, symptoms.

Is that just something they say, though, as reassurance to a susceptible
public? After all, how do they know? The vast majority won't have
presented at hospital, which is the only place they'll be tested to see
if they have it, or even sought any medical assistance. And we don't
have any reliable antibody test to say after the event whether they've
had it or not.

Post by Brian Reay
Next come those who have symptoms which are noticeable but do not require
hospital admission.

Who won't be tested for it therefore, and won't know if they've had it
or soemthing else.

Even of those who do go to hospital and are tested for it,
three-quarters prove negative as the statistics show. It's likely that
the vast majority who don't go to hospital have something else causing
their symptoms.

Post by Brian Reay
The above accounts for about 80 % of cases, it seems to vary, some say 60%,
but our ( the UK) numbers suggest more like 80%, perhaps a bit less.
The remaining 20% require hospital care.
Perhaps a quarter, 5% of the original infection pool, ICU.

We can't say that, though, without knowing the size of the Covid-19
pool, which we can't because we have no reliable antibody test.

[Martin Brown]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?
As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery
whether you get a ventilator.

At the moment, we have enough ventilators for everybody who needs one.

Although it isn't at all clear now that ventilators are really all that
much use against this particularly nasty complication if the lungs fail.

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge
That may change, of course, if the number of hospital admissions rises
considerably. But as things stand, we do seem to be supressing the
pandemic sufficiently to keep numbers below capacity.

Statistically, about one half of the patients who are put on ventilators
survive, and about half die.

US experience is more like 80% die and only 20% survive which could be a
result of them having to deal with more obese and diabetic patients.

Post by The Todal
So being guaranteed a ventilator does not by any means guarantee your
survival. It's all down to the strength of your lungs and your immune
system.  Boris was lucky.

They are starting to wonder whether an invasive ventilator is the right
choice for Covid-19 patients whose lungs are already seriously inflamed.
The positive pressure external O2 masks seem to have better outcomes.

Post by The Todal
If someone says to you "might as well get the virus now, get it over
with, you're young and strong" you should be very afraid. The statistics
might favour you, but some young people with no underlying health
conditions do die.

It is always a lottery but the odds are pretty good for those under 40
without underlying health conditions. Prof Spiegelhalter has shown that
the risk after catching Covid-19 is broadly comparable with taking your
entire annual risk of dying at a given age in a week (or perhaps up to
twice that if you are male and/or in an ethnic minority). See table 1:

https://medium.com/wintoncentre/how-much-normal-risk-does-covid-represent-4539118e1196

Outcomes once infected are also ~30% worse for blood group A.
Blood group O are marginally safer and B and AB about neutral.

He was on R4 Today programme this morning explaining his reasoning.

It is never going to be risk free. Some very unlucky individuals could
die as a result of becoming infected irrespective of how fit and healthy
they are if their immune system goes into an over reaction cytokine
storm or alternatively fails to mount an adequate defence.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30628-0/fulltext.

Unfortunately we cannot predict in advance who will be vulnerable.

Something like 80% of those with the infection active become carriers
shedding virus but without showing any external symptoms of the disease.
That is why social distancing is so important.

[Mark Goodge]

Post by The Todal

Post by Mark Goodge

Post by s***@gowanhill.com

Post by The Todal
Nobody knows, until they have had the infection, whether or not it will
be just a mild infection or turn into a form of viral pneumonia that can
kill you unless your body's own resources in conjunction with a
ventilator can overcome the infection.

Perhaps if they were guaranteed a ventilator as part of the experiment?
As in general it's a lottery whether you get the virus and a lottery whether you get a ventilator.

At the moment, we have enough ventilators for everybody who needs one.
That may change, of course, if the number of hospital admissions rises
considerably. But as things stand, we do seem to be supressing the
pandemic sufficiently to keep numbers below capacity.

Statistically, about one half of the patients who are put on ventilators
survive, and about half die.
So being guaranteed a ventilator does not by any means guarantee your
survival. It's all down to the strength of your lungs and your immune
system. Boris was lucky.

Indeed. Ventilators don't cure you of covid. They merely keep you alive
long enough for your body to have a decent chance of curing itself.

Mark

[Svenne]

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

[Peter Percival]

Post by Svenne

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

Do you recall the TGN1412 trials? (aka 'elephant man' trials). No
prosecutions or even reprimands.

[Fredxx]

Post by Svenne

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

Do you recall the TGN1412 trials? (aka 'elephant man' trials).  No
prosecutions or even reprimands.

No criminal intent. Studies already carried out in macaques very
successfully. Protocol was followed.

It is only right that no one was prosecuted.

For me the issue was of compensation. I'm not sure if the unfortunate
souls got any.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Fredxx

Do you recall the TGN1412 trials? (aka 'elephant man' trials).  No
prosecutions or even reprimands.

No criminal intent. Studies already carried out in macaques very
successfully. Protocol was followed.

There was some criticism that the trials of all participants were
started in rapid succession.

[Fredxx]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Fredxx

Do you recall the TGN1412 trials? (aka 'elephant man' trials).  No
prosecutions or even reprimands.

No criminal intent. Studies already carried out in macaques very
successfully. Protocol was followed.

There was some criticism that the trials of all participants were
started in rapid succession.

That was hindsight to the extreme. Though I agree with the notion the
trial could have been staged. I suspect costs might come into it, and
the belief it was a pretty safe drug.

The company who owned the rights went bankrupt soon after and was bought
up by a Russian company. Perhaps testing on Russians is less problematic?

[Brian Reay]

Post by Svenne

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

What makes you think testing involves infecting people with live virus?

Vaccines cause an immune response to be generated, that is what the trials
look for, in simple terms. In particular, dose levels required to get a
required level of response, dose method, side effects*, etc.

* if you have the annual flu jab, you may have noticed some years you get a
reaction. ‘They’ like to know if this kind of thing happens. Generally
reactions are mild. One of the several jabs I needed to travel to one of
the more unusual parts of the world, resulted in quite a reaction. I was
warned it might.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Svenne

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

If they did it in good faith as part of an ethically approved trial then
there is almost no chance they would be prosecuted.

But in fact this sort of trial would almost certainly not be approved
because a double blind placebo controlled trial on people naturally at
risk of infection would be both more scientifically valid and also not
require deliberate harm to be done to the subjects. It would also be
hundreds of times bigger and more expensive, but that is (ethical) life.

[R. Mark Clayton]

Post by Svenne

Post by Michael Chare
There must be those willing to take the vaccine and then be deliberately
infected. I doubt it would be difficult to find volunteers.

If someone is deliberately infected with the coronavirus, even if it is
part of a vaccine trial in a medical context, what would be the legal
consequences for the person who administered the dose of coronavirus if
the vaccine didn't work and the infected person died? Would they be open
to prosecution for murder or perhaps manslaughter?

If they explicitly consent in a medical context, I can't see grounds for a prosecution. People consent to surgery all the time, knowing that even relatively routine operations can go wrong or they can have a bad reaction to anesthetic, infection etc.