
Peter Thiel Is Bankrolling an Unapproved Offshore Herpes Vaccine Trial - Balgair
https://digg.com/2017/peter-thiel-herpes-vaccine-trial
======
tim333
The argument in favor of the tests:
[https://www.siumed.edu/pr/highlights/game-changer-herpes-
vac...](https://www.siumed.edu/pr/highlights/game-changer-herpes-vaccine-
shows-promise.html)

Excerpts:

>“Many of the virus vaccines we currently put in our kids — chickenpox, mumps,
measles and rubella — were developed using live-attenuated viruses in the
’50s, ’60s and ’70s when the regulatory landscape was more relaxed,” he says,
“and they have worked remarkably well.”

In the United States, a noticeable shift in research focus occurred around the
time of the Belmont Report, published in 1978, which summarized ethical
principles and guidelines for research involving human subjects. The FDA began
erring on the side of caution, and expediency became a casualty of the
government’s procedures.

>Dr. Halford feels the relative risk is fairly clear-cut.

“Relative risk is not a new concept,” says Halford. “Our technology is much
better today, yet within first-world countries the mindset for developing
vaccines has moved away from relative risk and toward the legal approach that
asks ‘Is there any risk whatsoever?’” Dr. Halford smiles. “There’s risk when
you walk out the door each day.”

He believes the more humane, common-sense approach weighs the risk of testing
a vaccine candidate versus the risk of doing nothing.

“For example, in 2016 we know that about 60 million people will get newly
infected by HSV-1 and 2—about a million people per week—and 2 to 3 percent are
going to progress to a lifetime of chronic disease,” he says. “Many of those
people will face a lifetime of never-ending isolation and pain caused by a
chronic herpes infection. These can also have devastating effects on the
psyche of patients.”

“So, do we run a small trial using something that’s been proven safe on
animals for the past 20 years or do we sit on the sidelines?” he asks. “If we
sit on the sidelines, people suffer.”

------
helloworld
I wish the reporter had clarified _why_ Rational Vaccines pursued this
unconventional approach.

The sentence below seems to imply that this was all they could afford:

 _After he failed to secure federal funding and an [institutional review
board], Halford moved ahead with the trial offshore._

But with Peter Thiel as an investor, I assume that money (within reason)
wasn't the primary motivator.

In general, I'm dismayed by the breathless, sensationalistic tone of this
article. The people involved don't seem stupid or malevolent, so I'd like to
understand better their rationale for what they're doing.

~~~
AndyMcConachie
They're doing it because they can. The FDA wouldn't allow it in the USA, so
they're infecting people for science in a place where there are fewer
protections afforded the citizenry.

From an academic standpoint this is ethically questionable. From a purely
moral standpoint this is disgusting.

~~~
tim333
What if it cures the sick without causing problems during the tests. Would
that still be disgusting?

~~~
brainfire
If I play Russian Roulette and don't get shot, does that mean the people who
told me it was dangerous were wrong?

~~~
maxharris
Do you have the final say on what goes into your body or do you not?

It is only morally disgusting if the study participants are purposefully
_misled_ or _forced_ to submit to the study. This is absolutely NOT the case
here.

~~~
Balgair
You do, however, the MDs do not. And if they are not using MDs, that is insane
too. That they are injecting something without IRB approval is nuts as is,
that any licensed MD in the US would do so is doubly crazy and I would like to
never be practiced on by them. The medical field is a different beast than,
say, putting on an aftermarket car-horn or putting super instead of unleaded
into the gas tank. The vast majority of people, including nurses and other
MDs, have no idea how a specific medicine works or the complexities therein.
Docs are required to help them, not to hurt them, we've thought so for
thousands of years. Yes, many may say that they are helping the people, but
the large majority of other MDs, via the IRB, say that they are hurting them.
I'm gonna go with the IRBs here and say this is crazy stuff and sets a very
dangerous precedent.

