![]() ![]() Just about every aspect of the study, such as the detection of the measles virus in the guts of these children, is questionable. Seems that Wakefield subjected the kids to invasive tests, such as lumbar punctures, which they didn't need and for which he never received ethical approval. Seems that Wakefield was getting money from lawyers planning on suing vaccine makers, and he owned a patent on an alternative to the MMR vaccine. Although the paper claimed that cognitive problems developed a few days after the MMR vaccine, a simple investigation of hospital records revealed this wasn't so and in several cases parents reported problems before the vaccine. Next came the lousy job in cheery picking. Subsequent analysis of the methodology, which should have been done during the peer review process, revealed that Wakefield cherry picked the patients for the study. Next was the article's opening line: "We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder." Nope, unless "consecutive" means 1, 5, 8 and onward. For The Lancet to publish, let alone promote, work that negates years of medical wisdom based on a skimpy analysis of 12 kids was highly irresponsible from the get go. The study was based on 12 children from the hospital where Wakefield was working. The first and most obvious was the fact that there were more authors than subjects. The Lancet promoted it the news media reported it and parents in wealthy countries believed it. In the case of COVID-19, the researchers note that risk/benefit analyses of the vaccine were more heavily focused on physical health concerns, rather than those related to education and social well-being.Here's the backdrop: An unknown British scientist named Andrew Wakefield and 12 colleagues published a paper claiming a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, gastrointestinal disease and autism. Examples include "tension of protection," which refers to the competing interests of protecting children from potential risks associated with vaccine studies and protecting them from diseases that new vaccines are designed to guard against the "moving target problem," which can occur when dominant variants of a virus change in the time it takes for younger children to be enrolled in a vaccine trial and the problem of "narrow conception of risk," which happens when certain risks are emphasized while others are perceived to be less important. The article presents a number of ethical concerns to consider when performing this risk-benefit analysis. However, the researchers contend that the benefits of age de-escalation approaches should be weighed against potential drawbacks. ![]() Also, since children are unable to provide informed consent, they should not be subjected to the same level of risk as consenting adults. There is a moral imperative to protect children from the uncertainties of novel interventions. The researchers acknowledge ethical advantages to using age de-escalation in pediatric vaccine trials. ![]() "We want to help make sure researchers and pharmaceutical companies have the resources they need in advance of future vaccine development, to design trials in ways which will prioritize the development of safe and effective vaccines for all ages, in as efficient a manner as is appropriate." "In the development of the COVID-19 vaccines, infants, toddlers and preschoolers were the last to receive access to the vaccines, and for many families the wait felt very long," said Dr. The researchers clarify the benefits, risks, and trade-offs involved in age de-escalation approaches and call for the development of evidence-based best practice guidelines that can help policymakers more effectively protect the health and well-being of children in pediatric vaccine trials. Oakland University Professors Ami Harbin and Mark Navin, with University of Michigan Professor Naomi Laventhal, M.D., have co-authored an article titled "Ethics of age de-escalation in pediatric vaccine trials: Attending to the case of COVID-19," which appears in the journal Vaccine.įocusing on pediatric COVID-19 vaccine development as a key case study, the article delineates important ethical factors to consider when employing age de-escalation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |