The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Human [Chat]llenge Trials
MrMister
Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
The worldwide COVID-19 pandemic was responsible for tremendous loss of life. Vaccines have turned out to be an invaluable tool in fighting it. In light of the global health crisis, some proposed that efficacy testing of vaccine candidates could be substantially accelerated through the use of controlled human infection (CHI) trials. In such a trial, a relatively small number of participants would be randomized to receive either a vaccine candidate or a placebo, and subsequently, all would be deliberately exposed to SARS-COV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. These trials promised to rapidly generate data about vaccine efficacy or separate out more promising candidates for traditional phase 3 testing. They can also allow for efficacy testing even under conditions where the virus has locally abated.
Recent controlled infection studies, e.g. for malaria or seasonal flu, infect participants with pathogens that are either curable or self-limiting, thereby imposing moderate burdens from e.g. uncomfortable symptoms but only negligible risk of death or long-term injury. If maintaining an appropriate regard for participants’ interests required that diseases studied in controlled infection studies always be curable or self-limiting, then CHIs for SARS-COV-2 could not be ethically conducted; COVID-19 is neither curable nor self-limiting, and it poses a non-negligible chance of death. However, prevailing scholarly opinion holds that controlled infection studies are not fundamentally ethically distinct from other types of biomedical research that impose risks on participants without promising corresponding benefits, and they should be judged by the same fundamental criteria. According to a broad body of bioethical work, as well as the US Federal regulations, informed adults should be permitted to voluntarily assume non-negligible risks of serious harm in the course of participating in socially valuable medical research, provided those risks are not too high.
How high is too high? With respect to research that enrolls competent, consenting adults, the two most prominent proposed standards are that net mortality risks should not be permitted to exceed either those of kidney donation, or 1% absolutely. But although there was strong evidence that CHIs performed with young, healthy volunteers would not exceed these risk levels, and although there was both academic advocacy for, and strong volunteer interest in human challenge trials, none were ever conducted in the United States.
Discuss.
+15
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Chanus, our Chanus, that loveable scamp who is dear to us all, was the guitarist and backup vocals for a SKA band called Dolt45 who released their hit single "Cops Should Smoke Bongs" from their debut album "Greatest Hits Vol. 6"
In this behind the Chat we're gonna get a deeper look into what inspired these songs
Into the pioneering technology that created these songs
...and hopefully, just a little insight into an older, mellower Chanus who just wants to record soft pop covers for Grey's Anatomy
Or Techno Beat Chanus
Game Dev Musician Chanus?
Or my favorite, slappa da bass Chanus
Chanus is a true inspiration to us all. What is your favorite Chanus
godbless
added to OP
shoutout to the musical stylings of chanus tho
Ah-ah
Savior of the Universe!
Some of the politicians expressed interest behind the scenes, and 35 congresspeople even signed an open letter advocating for CHIs.
imo the failure was, sadly, largely with the ethics establishment (BIG ETHICS!!) which, while not saying that challenge trials couldn't be performed, still hemmed and hawed about how profoundly hard the decision was. As a result, they preserved maximal lack of responsibility for themselves--not even taking the responsibility of a hard "no", which would have been wrong, but respectable! But no, they kept themselves off the hook while also giving absolutely zero cover for anyone else going forward with it.
Total institutional failure and I'm still mad about it.
equally life saving i'm sure
i'm sorry, i've just rediscovered my soundcloud.
Check out my site, the Bismuth Heart | My Twitter
Tough ska life
When someone wants to infect themselves with coronavirus to own the libs: I guess it's their right, ya know? You might not agree with the decision, but that's just freedom. You don't get to boss them around.
You cant just CHALLENGE people
Too CHALLENGING
holding a flag and weeping rn
This was definitely a recurring joke
...
<.<
>.>
They operate in a critical role in my region, so I have no problem dropping some coin on them to keep the mission going.
This week. They sent out a non-trivial gift to donors. I'm like, "no, use money for the folks that need the help. This thing you sent I can get for myself."
It concerns me that their upping the administrative costs at the expense of their core costs.
sigh
but they're listening to every word I say
does Graham get his helmet off? maybe i'll never know
the bet is that doing things like that attracts more donors
Just seems like they could have used the $30 to like.. provide some homeless kid with a new/clean pair of socks, hot meal, face masks, and hygiene kit.
There are 4 doses given of it, and people don't know whether the first two are the real two or the second two are the real two, and then I suppose they compare infection rates during the interlude for the people who did and didn't get the dose
It's really good of them to have signed up! Very ethical.
That guy really has it all. Musical talent. Programming skills. Logistics knowledge. A triple threat.
but they're listening to every word I say