Remember that time CNBC’s Rick Santelli caused a media firestorm by (half-seriously) suggesting that people should infect themselves with SARS-CoV-2 to try and blunt the economic fallout?
Well, months later, scientists around the world are seriously debating the ethics of so-called “human challenge” trials – where participants are intentionally “challenged” (i.e. deliberately infected with a pathogen) to test the efficacy of a vaccine or treatment. On Monday, the WHO will hear from an advisory group of scientists who will discuss the pros/cons of running these trials with young, healthy volunteers who are at the lowest risk for the most severe consequences. The Netherlands is already ramping up plans for a trial that will involve the deliberate infection of hundreds of volunteers, and the British are finalizing plans for a “challenge” study of their own.
Skeptics like DoubleLine’s Jeff Gundlach have doubted the extremely high efficacy numbers (~95%) released by Pfizer and Moderna, with the bond trading legend claiming he ‘doesn’t buy it’. Aside from the headline numbers, which Gundlach feels are unrealistically high, he pointed to other shortcomings like the small number of actually infected patients documented in each ‘Phase 3’ trial.
Isn’t the fact that the WHO is seriously considering the ‘feasibility’ of these studies a tacit admission that the data we’ve seen so far is somehow lacking?
To be sure, there are plenty of scientists who have serious reservations about exposing volunteers to SARS-CoV-2. As we have reported, while consenting adults should be allowed to take whatever risks they want, there’s a known unknown regarding this relatively new illness – namely, the fact that many patients experience a brief bout of the ‘worst flu of my life’, while others – nicknamed ‘long haulers’ – can remain ill for months, experiencing ‘waves’ of debilitating symptoms with no end in sight. – READ MORE
Listen to the insightful Thomas Paine Podcast Below --