HOW THE HELL DOES ANYONE KNOW WHAT TO USE ON CHILDREN WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO USE ON ADULTS!
The adult vaccines are not perfected and J&J had a death recently in those adult trials.
CHILDREN ARE NOT TO BE PART OF AN EXPERIMENT!
There is no indication that separation and isolation have a poor effect. The current distance learning has been proven to be 100% safe. There is absolutely no reason to experiment on children. J&J is way out of line.
This Washington administration has provided a wide-open regulatory environment for this pandemic and is it not a safe method to put children into an experiment. When the adult dosage is known and PROVEN to be successful then and only then is the child does determined.
I remind this virus is a killer and it maims it's victims. There is no reason to experiment on children. There needs to be an injunction against J&J and its methodologies scrutinized for purity and safety.
Reuters, New York, OCT 31 2020, 08:01 IST UPDATED: OCT 31 2020, 08:13 IS
Johnson & Johnson (click here) plans to start testing its experimental Covid-19 vaccine in youths aged 12 to 18 as soon as possible, and the company's previous experience with the same technology in a vaccine successfully used in children could give it a leg up with regulators.
"We plan to go into children as soon as we possibly can, but very carefully in terms of safety," J&J's Dr. Jerry Sadoff told a virtual meeting of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices on Friday....
It seems to me the PERMISSION to begin a pediatric vaccine trial should be coming from the CDC and not from J&J. The authority pipeline is backward. It seems this country has had enough of child endangerment.
In 1966, Henry K. Beecher, MD, (click here) published a study describing 22 instances of mainstream medical research that he claimed were unethical. In his article in the New England Journal of Medicine, Beecher described medical studies in which
- medical treatment was withheld from subjects for research purposes
- institutionalized children and adults were involved
- surgeons performed experimental techniques with unknown effects
- infectious or otherwise harmful substances were deliberately introduced into a subject’s body.
Only one of the studies Beecher cited related to vaccine research. As he noted,
This study was directed toward determining the period of infectivity of infectious hepatitis. Artificial induction of hepatitis was carried out in an institution of mentally defective children in which a mild form of hepatitis was endemic. The parents gave consent for the intramuscular injection or oral administration of the virus, but nothing is said regarding what was told them concerning the appreciable hazards involved.
A resolution adopted by the World Medical Association states explicitly: "Under no circumstances is a doctor permitted to do anything which would weaken the physical or mental resistance of a human being except from strictly therapeutic or prophylactic indications imposed in the interest of the patient." There is not right to risk an injury to 1 person for the benefit of others. —Henry K. Beecher, MD (1966)
The study Beecher summarized was conducted by Saul Krugman, MD, at the Willowbrook State School in Staten Island, New York. Krugman’s work established that hepatitis A and B were different diseases and showed the benefit, before vaccination was available, of gamma globulin as a preventive for hepatitis. Krugman had previously stated his position for infecting the Willowbrook children:...
Published in final edited form as:
Vaccine. 2009 May 26; 27(25-26): 3291–3294.
Published online 2009 Feb 20. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2009.02.031
Robert M. Jacobson, Inna G. Ovsyannikova,, and Gregory A. Poland
Past difficulties encountered in pediatric vaccine research have positively influenced the development of modern regulations of human subjects’ research. These regulations permit pediatric research but impose special restrictions on the types of studies to which children may participate, and these restrictions have important implications for modern vaccine trials. These ethical issues pose real but surmountable concerns. Considerations also include the use of placebos, critical for trial design but an impediment to parental permission. Recent pediatric vaccine studies illustrate practical alternatives to placebos that preserve allocation concealment and blinding yet obtain parental support. Vaccine researchers must consider the role parents play, not just in giving formal permission for their children’s participation, but also for their roles in active recruitment, successful retention, and data acquisition. Studies of parents’ attitudes do identify consistencies among motivating forces that drive parents to participate or refuse their children’s participation. These studies should influence how we design and execute pediatric vaccine trials. Finally, ethical considerations and current regulations raise certain issues concerning the remuneration of the research volunteer when that volunteer is a child. The published literature illustrates wide variation in practice. Better understanding of the restrictions in pediatric research, the use of placebos, the attitude of parents, and the concerns with remuneration can better equip the vaccine researcher in pursuing successful studies in children.
