Brain worm hell: The CDC hepatitis B study is unethical and must never be published

[NNadir]

This is almost certainly out of worm brains extreme and deadly ignorance.

The CDC hepatitis B study is unethical and must never be published.

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), an international organization that establishes best practices for scholarly journals, has endorsed specific ethical standards for studies that involve vulnerable groups. Among these standards is this statement in the Declaration of Helsinki: “Reports of research not in accordance with this Declaration should not be accepted for publication.” The current controversy about the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) funding for a proposed study of hepatitis B vaccines in Guinea-Bissau must serve as a reminder of this core requirement of publication ethics.

An unsolicited $1.6 million grant to the Bandim Health Project at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU) would randomly assign more than 14,000 newborns into two groups, those who would receive the vaccine at birth and those who would act as a control group with delayed vaccination. The purpose of the controversial study was to assess the “broader health effects” of the vaccine for the control group.

But we already know the most critical health effect beyond the 48-months of the study: Withholding vaccination will predictably result in an increased incidence of liver disease later in life, including liver failure, cirrhosis and cancer. Therefore, the true scale of the tragedy brought on by this study would never be fully be known.

Already patently unethical, the study design would also exploit one of the world’s poorest countries, where more than 50 percent of its population live in poverty, according to the World Bank. The Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy of the University of Minnesota reports that about 1 in 5 people born in Guinea-Bissau has chronic hepatitis B, that 9 in 10 babies who are exposed at birth develop a chronic infection and that 1 out of 4 of them will die of hepatitis B-related liver disease.

There is a larger bizarre context surrounding this now paused study: The Trump administration’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices voted in December to abandon a 30-year recommendation that all babies born in the U.S. be vaccinated for hepatitis B at birth...

These people are murderers, pure and simple. As horrible as it seems, the orange pedophile is not just a pedophile, he's a mass murderer, as is brain worm Bobby.

[cachukis]

1. Ruthless.

[erronis]

2. Another great piece published at Retraction Watch. They may be our last safeguard against bogus information.

Many good comments - a couple:

If they actually perform the study the result will be a paper of dubious ethics, which should be retracted. This is the Tuskegee Syphilis Study revisited. Retraction is not just about fraud, it is about any poor ethics.

If there had never been any safety or effectiveness studies of the Hep-B vaccine, that would make sense.

Once there have been safety and effectiveness studies, the calculus changes.

Let me use a non-politically-charged example. There is some correlational evidence that aspirin may help prevent a certain cancer in older men who have a pre-cancer condition. At some point in the past it could have been fully ethical to do a randomized controlled trial to see if this was actually true.

However, that study cannot ethically be done now, because it has been solidly established that low doses of aspirin have a heart-protective effect in men in that age class, and a large proportion of them are already taking it for that reason. So a trial would either have to exclude such men (which introduces a serious bias, because if you are *not* taking aspirin there is likely a reason -- such people are not a random sample) or forbid some of them from taking aspirin anymore, which would endanger their lives.

Trial ethics must be assessed based on the body of evidence we already have. Once we knew aspirin was saving lives in this group, we could not ethically withhold it.

If you wanted to show that the proposed trial was indeed ethical, it would take a meticulous examination of the existing trials for this vaccine and a detailed showing of why they are not sufficient. If they are sufficient, the trial is flatly unethical. This is not something we get to guess about. There are a whole lot of lives at stake, because the death rate from complications of Hep-B in Guinea-Bissau is very, very high.

I have not been able to find any such detailed showing. If it exists it needs to be out there for examination and discussion. If it doesn't exist, you cannot ethically do this trial given what's been established by previous ones, just like in my aspirin example.

One also has to ask, if the intent of the trial is to assess side effects (which is what I've gathered from discussions of it), why you would conduct it in a country where Hep-B is endemic and a very serious public health problem. That seems to maximize the potential harm. It might be ethical for me to enroll my hypothetical newborn in such a study, because the chance that they are exposed is extremely low, so the information on safety might justify the tiny additional risk. But the same is not true for a Guinean baby. If, as the body of current evidence says, the vaccine works, you are exposing them to an enormous risk of illness and eventual death by withholding or delaying it.

[niyad]

3. As far as krasnov being a mass murderer. . I give you his deadly 2020

pandemic "response".

[Blue Owl]

4. RFK -- Rancid Fucking Kook

[TheRickles]

5. Babies born to mothers with Hep B (ie, IV drug abusers) are at high risk of getting Hep B.

Apart from this small and readily identifiable segment of the population, Hep B is extremely rare in newborns, and the risk/benefit ratio for vaccinating all newborns is negligible.
https://substack.com/inbox/post/180441895|

[popsdenver]

6. Trump is a proven killer

statistics say that by delaying Covid acknowledgement, treatment, and his anti covid vaccine crap, he added 500,000 extra deaths from the virus here in the U.S.
500K More deaths per capita, than almost all other nations......

Everything he is doing, has the mark of eliminating populations here in the U.S.

Why would he do that? Less workers, all needing jobs, and forced to work for a pittance? Like the Great Depression?????
Not a pretty sight, read Steinbeck's GRAPES OF WRATH.
And this time around, No FDR to pull us out........