We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
By Luis E. Sabini Fernández
In Argentina the laboratories are in favor. This Sarmientina history of medicine is obsolete, or perhaps, much worse, it has been transformed, like the portrait of Dorian Gray.
In Argentina the laboratories are in favor. The president has just announced (speech of 4/18/2011) that "the package" of vaccines goes from 6 that were supplied until 2003 to 15 for 2011 ...
“He incorporated - I agree - in 2005, Hepatitis A for children up to one year old, up to that moment we had 68,000 cases of Hepatitis B per year and also with the consequent transplants there was a mortality of 1 per 1,000, mortality or liver transplant product of this pathology. […] Between 2010 and 2011, there have been only 100 cases. "
From the presidential words it is not clear which vaccines for hepatitis are injected, on which pathogens it is intended to act, because it tells us that Néstor Kirchner ordered the supply of vaccines for hepatitis A and that we had cases of hepatitis B ... It arises, however, clearly, that the pathogenic microagent is of conspicuous weakness. Because there is a mortality much less than one per thousand (1 o / oo between deaths and transplants with survivors).
If out of every thousand cases of disease, 999 come out unscathed, should we accuse the pathogen of such danger, or is it not rather another cause of death (or the need for transplants)?
And in this case, what is more sensible ?: to supply millions of vaccines (always with potential consequences due to the range of not exactly healthy ingredients, such as mercury, that are known to carry) to avoid the 68 thousand cases of hepatitis or assume the presence of those 68 thousand cases and, yes, face the measures of strengthening, nutrition, hygiene, necessary so that the 68 most punished also leave unscathed? Because the numbers reveal that it is not the strain that is dangerous, but something else, for example, hunger, homelessness ...
"You know the pneumococcal vaccine is for little children who have pneumonia, or have sepsis or meningitis [...]"
Perhaps the president wanted to say that this vaccine is supposed to prevent pneumonia, sepsis or meningitis, but the scriptwriter has little medical knowledge ... and does not know that vaccines are not given when the disease is present, but precisely to prevent it ...
Anyway, avoid sepsis ... that children have sepsis, what does it mean? As far as my little medical knowledge goes, sepsis is the cultured or academic form of the voice septicemia. And septicemia refers to generalized infections of very diverse etiology. In the face of septicemia, strictly speaking, there is no vaccine nor can there be one. There was no prevention, that's why septicemia arose. In any case, what there will be will be a troublesome attempt at a cure; overcoming, as it were, the infection or infections, cleaning the affected areas (and when they have become necrotic, gangrene, amputating). I cannot understand what a huge vaccine could be spoken of in those cases.
Referring today to vaccines, it is essential to analyze the behavior of laboratories with the production, placement, sale of vaccines and with a prior moment: their preparation, experimentation and approval.
They are going through episodes too serious to just bet on M's doctor. That Sarmientina history of medicine is obsolete, or perhaps, much worse, has been transformed, like the portrait of Dorian Gray.
When swine flu struck, N1H1, the latest in an unprecedented string, was diagnosed by the WHO as a pandemic, and led to the purchase by various national states of millions, hundreds of millions of vaccines, to save the planet's population . It was found shortly after that this flu had affected a few hundred people around the world, while the common flu harvested, as every year, thousands that in planetary dimensions go completely unnoticed and are demographically insignificant (no, by the way, for affected individuals or their ties). But the swine flu with the vaccine included revealed to have a hundredth part of the importance of the flu that nobody cares for or controls ... The WHO, a little belatedly, tried to escape the ridicule by raising the "pandemic state", but the laboratories had already charged, well charged, your market.
But along with the revelation of the big business that means placing millions of vaccines for almost nonexistent diseases, another aspect, frankly more seedy, rather in the style of the organ trade, has long been known.
These are the protocols for testing vaccines using "informed consent." Because, apparently, the laboratories take great care, through "ethical advisers", of the free will of those who are invited to participate in the experiments.
Guinea pig “fishing” nets have been denounced, for example, in Uganda and the United States, where for six years a network worked with impunity in the XXI century, experimenting with a very refined and nasty target: adopted children of African and Hispanic populations. . (1) After successive deaths and a journalistic investigation, "the service" was dismantled. But if that happens "even" in the US, imagine what happens in the planetary suburbs, where there are no health authorities and if there are, they are cheap or are dazzled by the knowledge that it comes packed from the First World.
Some time ago, Pablo Calvo, from the daily Clarín revealed to us that precisely in the case of an “experimental vaccine”, “They fined those responsible for testing with children”.
But the behavior of the laboratories deserves much more than a fine (a million pesos, which is like a change in many of their market operations). Because what is ventilated is a chain of lies, jealously linked: the mother who wants to vaccinate her child and goes to the place publicly designated for it, but is diverted to a clinic for human guinea pigs lying to her that the vaccination service has moved, that is received by whoever declares himself a pediatrician without being one, the "new vaccination system" is explained orally to him as far superior to the traditional one and when he is made to sign the "informed consent" -with which the laboratory takes care of what it can pass- you are persuaded not to read it because it would say exactly everything the presumed pediatrician has already told you. Only, as the doctor Ricardo Mazzanti (from whose chronicle we extracted the preceding steps) (2) clarifies, in the ‘conversation’ the word ‘experimental’ never appears…
But all this, already painful in itself, has an aggravating and decisive factor: in these studies, children die like flies. This is what the aforementioned doctor Mazzanti reveals in the story that we gloss: the death of the baby Carena Maximo.
Although for ANMAT the corrective seems to be the fines ... and the counterclaims:
"[…] The reasons [for the fine] are the poor quality of information given to the parents about the scope and risks of the experiment […]."
”It came to light that several were illiterate and did not understand the scientific terms contained in the 13 pages of the informed consent, which is the form where the inclusion of children is accepted.
"They were also not fully aware of the potential dangers involved in the study, according to the testimonies collected at the time. For incorporating, monitoring and following the evolution of the children for three years, 350 dollars are paid for each case to the doctors who carry out the study.
”[…] In at least three of the mothers of the participating subjects there is an unclear understanding of the objectives and conditions of their participation in the study.
They didn't know what they had signed, what.
"The laboratory had assured that" 98% of parents or guardians have some degree of education, of which 70% have secondary or tertiary education. " But the ANMAT Drug Evaluation Directorate questioned that information. "
"During the inspection, it was not possible to verify the presence of two witnesses for the taking of informed consent in the case of illiterate patients, as well as [sic] the evaluation of the degree of education of the grantors."
Striking sagacity of the ANMAT investigations. There were no secure protocols, reliable records for 98% or 70%. He snorts that something is wrong if, having 98% of the parents protocolized, education and a good majority at the secondary or tertiary level, he verifies the repeated presence of an illiterate population. What will it be? That the local schools were particularly bad?
The ANMAT reproaches and apostrophizes:
"[…] To prevent cheating and deception, it emphasizes that laboratories and professionals should investigate in a climate of« respect, consideration and sensitivity »towards the participants, especially if they live in poor communities."
Observe the patient reader that we are not talking about procedural errors but about a policy.
To think that it would be so easy to overcome these inconveniences! It is enough to offer informed consent to middle class, literate, discerning people and we no longer have all the problems raised.
ANMAT tries to amend the plan of these untidy laboratories:
"The population on which the study was developed consisted of minors from low-income families.
Hey! What about 98% and 70% secondary and tertiary?
"[…] People with such characteristics are considered vulnerable subjects […] therefore both the researchers and the sponsors should have taken extreme precautions in order to guarantee the well-being of the enrolled patients […]."
This pietism of those who criticize laboratory procedures is poignant. But slightly lacking in inventiveness. What better way to help the sponsors by guiding them to direct informed consent to cultured people, of settled middle classes, people who can read inside out, so that they undertake such experiments but with full knowledge of the facts?
In such a case, it would not even be necessary to "take extreme precautions" since those invited to such experiments would have to take such precautions themselves.
The finishers, those who criticize so "harshly" the use of people as guinea pigs, present us with the quintessence of their disquisitions: "The central problem posed by the participation of vulnerable people as research subjects is that it can involve an unequal distribution of burdens and Benefits […]."
Exquisite phrase, which one intuits, even dimly, that it comes with an ethical charge included.
Unfortunately, it does not warn or grant an ethical position in the face of, for example, the death of 14 babies during experimentation with the pneumococcal vaccine, which is so highly considered today. Of course, the dead are from Santiago ...
“In these types of studies, in which children are recruited to establish the safety and efficacy of a vaccine, health needs and ethical issues must be addressed […] the recruitment of communities and individuals participating in a clinical trial should be fair."
Is it clear, eeehhh? A lot of ethics to go find guinea pigs. Treat them with mercy and respect. Improve brainwashing, for them to sign after they have read.
But I wonder: why not go find children, babies for experimentation by informed consent, in illustrated layers? Why not look for them directly in the upper layers, who surely know how to read even better these types of documents where coincidence, conscience, responsibility, perspective are so important? Undoubtedly, it will be much easier to find suitable people in such strata than in the always problematic search among people with difficulties, doubts, intellectual and cognitive weaknesses. Don't you think?
I allow myself to suggest these procedural simplifications in the same spirit, although not with the same brilliance, that the famous Jonathan Swift showed to solve the problem of poor Irish children, almost three centuries ago.
Luis E. Sabini Fernandez Journalist, editor of the magazine futures of the planet, society and each one,
(1) Mae-Wan Ho and Sam Burcher, “African and Hispanic children adopted from the US and Ugandans used as guinea pigs for drugs”, futures, no 9, Río de la Plata, 2006.
(2) "Chronicle of an announced death", within the COMPAS protocol (Valente ten pneumococcal experimental vaccine).