I dunno.

It's not at all clear that the drug will save the kid.  And if the drug causes a deadly reaction in the kid, and are the parents going to turn around and say, "EVIL DRUG COMPANY killed my baby."  Are they going to scurry a battalion of lawyers to demand compensation?

As for cost of drug development ...  If aspirin was discovered today, the FDA won't approve it. If penicillin was discovered today, the FDA won't approve it.  The precautionary principle doesn't help so much when it comes to finding new drugs. But no one wants to be one shafted with birth defects because their mom took thalidomide. The paternalism of the FDA policies denies dying patients their human right to try experimental drugs, literally adds millions to the cost of drug development. 

I'd happier if FDA become more of an auditing agency than an approval agency. And let the public decide how much they want to gamble with their health.  But most people don't see it my way. They prefer to have a big daddy in the person of the government making things safe for everybody, so that they don't have to think, or rather so they know whom to blame when shit goes wrong.  I just wish more people saw that deadly costs associated with guaranteed security. 

"Louis Pasteur in his testing of the Rabies' vaccine, the first human made vaccine in history"

This is not correct. The first vaccine was developed not in France by Pasteur in the 19th century, but in England and Germany during the 18th century. And it was Edward Jenner who performed the first "unethical" testing, in 1796, by inoculating an 8 year old boy with a smallpox vaccine. The boy was selected because "he was healthy". Happily his treatment was successful and he lived until 1853 - so the lawyers all went home hungry...
 

"Louis Pasteur in his testing of the Rabies' vaccine, the first human made vaccine in history"

 

This is not correct. The first vaccine was developed not in France by Pasteur in the 19th century, but in England and Germany during the 18th century. And it was Edward Jenner who performed the first "unethical" testing, in 1796, by inoculating an 8 year old boy with a smallpox vaccine. The boy was selected because "he was healthy". Happily his treatment was successful and he lived until 1853 - so the lawyers all went home hungry...

 

Jenner used cowpox infections to prevent or lessen future smallpox. There's a difference between "First Vaccine" and "First man made vaccine".

Louis Pasteur transplanted the rabies virus from rabbits and dried it out afterward prior to inoculation to weaken it. The difference between Jenner and Pasteur is that Pasteur's methods were artificial, not natural substitute.

Without Pasteur modern medicine would not exist, but his methods were very unethical and potentially mortal.

----------------------------

@crazyfish

As for potential lawsuit:

That's another problem and it would cost the company money along with potential lives saved from a successful run of this drug.

We're not that different in views for the cost of regulation, if you just hold back your libertarianism a little, we should to be friends

There's a difference between "First Vaccine" and "First man made vaccine".

By definition vaccines are made by man. Jenner made his vaccine before Pasteur - therefore Pasteur's vaccine cannot be "the first human made vaccine in history".

What you are describing is the different methodologies used by Pasteur and Jenner. But despite their different approaches the outcome was the same: creating "any preparation used to confer immunity to a disease by inoculation", which is the definition of vaccine [Collins English dictionary].  Jenner's work and Pasteur's work both fulfill this standard definition of "vaccine"

Pasteur['s] ... methods were very unethical and potentially mortal.

And so were Jenner's

Fine, remember to tell the French that yourself

We can disagree, but I still think the two should be separate as Jenner's method was not original and could occur naturally, which Benjamin Jesty would attest as he was the first performer of cowpox inoculation in 1770's, two decades before Jenner (he didn't invent it, he just got famous for writing about it). Pasteur at least developed an artificial process to weaken viruses before transplanting, so he actually grew the virus, weakened it, and passed it on with a doctor (since he was not a physician he couldn't give little joey his shot).

By the way, prior to Pasteur actually offering the term of "vaccine" as a nod to Jenner, Vaccine was defined merely as inoculations with cowpox to prevent smallpox. In a way, without Pasteur defining it that way, Jenner would have been relegated to a one hit wonder

The fun of medical history.....

However, back to topic, yes Jenner was extremely unethical. He infected his gardener's son with cowpox, then infected him with smallpox. I don't know about you, but that sounds like attempted murder without proven research or trials.

Medicine in those days allowed for Frankenstein type such situations to occur; unethical and committed researchers could do as they will without a regard to human life as long as they were successful.

Nowadays, we have placed limits on those extremes, but we face a different issue of inaction in times of need and a goal oriented medical research.

The fun of medical history.....

 

However, back to topic, yes Jenner was extremely unethical. He infected his gardener's son with cowpox, then infected him with smallpox. I don't know about you, but that sounds like attempted murder without proven research or trials.

 

The gardener must have pissed him off,  planted the wrong color roses or something  .

I still think the two should be separate as Jenner's method was not original and could occur naturally

With respect, what you think is not the point. It's what the rest of the world thinks that matters. The cowpox needed preparation, by a human, and application, by a human, to a suitable patient, selected by a human.  That is what makes Jenner's work a "vaccine" within the standard definition agreed by everyone else:

"any preparation used to confer immunity to a disease by inoculation"

Benjamin Jesty would attest as he was the first performer of cowpox inoculation in 1770's, two decades before Jenner (he didn't invent it, he just got famous for writing about it).

Um, did you not read my earlier post where I already pointed this out?

Jenner was extremely unethical. He infected his gardener's son with cowpox, then infected him with smallpox

Um, did you not read my earlier post where I already pointed this out? :P

Zombie i dont see benjamin jesty mentioned

Also i never acknowledge his ethics prior to my last post

Zombie i dont see benjamin jesty mentioned

Why would I specifically name Benjamin Jesty? Benjamin Jesty was not the only person who was active in England before Jenner. And others were involved in Germany as well. That's why I said: "The first vaccine was developed not in France by Pasteur in the 19th century, but in England and Germany during the 18th century."

Also i never acknowledge his ethics prior to my last post

You were just repeating what had already been said, adding nothing new.

Anyway, at least you now agree that Pasteur's vaccine was not "the first human made vaccine in history".

Only to brits, for the rest of the world, I will still hand it to the french

Still, we agree on the most important part, Jenner was unethical in how he conducted himself.

By the way, how does nhs handle experimental treatments. Do you guys make special exceptions like the Us? Or do you guys let people live or die without the option?

Only to brits, for the rest of the world, I will still hand it to the french

It's your choice to be at variance with the established knowledge base, just don't hold your breath waiting for science history to be rewritten to fall into line with your singular view any time soon

Pasteur's work on vaccines built on the earlier work, and a lot more besides - truly he is a science giant. He's been called "the father of microbiology" for good reason. His work speaks for itself and doesn't need to be augmented by an inaccurate claim that his was "the first human made vaccine in history".

Still, we agree on the most important part, Jenner was unethical in how he conducted himself.

Actually it was you who raised the question of ethics in your opening post when you stated that it was Pasteur who was "unethical" in how he conducted himself: "Everyone in health care loves to debate Pasteur, because as unethical as he was...."

Actually it was you who raised the question of ethics in your opening post when you stated that it was Pasteur who was "unethical" in how he conducted himself: "Everyone in health care loves to debate Pasteur, because as unethical as he was...."

 

Actually my entire Blog entry is centered on Bioethics?

That point holds true, because health care people do like to debate Pasteur when you talk to them about bioethics. Ask around?

Also, I have noticed you are deflecting from my question from before about the UK NHS:

By the way, how does nhs handle experimental treatments. Do you guys make special exceptions like the Us? Or do you guys let people live or die without the option?

No, I just don't have the information. But now we seem to have dealt with the other matters I'm looking into it

No, I just don't have the information. But now we seem to have dealt with the other matters I'm looking into it

Any insights?

Or are you onto the next blog