As long as a Martin Shkrell-esque big pharma is a convenient whipping boy that
nobody objects to why at all spoil the argument by bringing cold logic into it?
On 05/02/19, 1:24 PM, "silklist on behalf of Deepa Agashe"
<silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus....@lists.hserus.net on behalf of
daga...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05-Feb-2019, at 13:02, Srini RamaKrishnan <che...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 12:22 PM Deepa Agashe <daga...@gmail.com
<mailto:daga...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> and the fact that vaccines fail in 1% (or some such small fraction) of
>> humans does not make this understanding unscientific.
>
>
> 1% of a 100 million children is 1 million. Even 0.1% is 100,000 kids that
> will definitely have an adverse reaction. It's one thing to accept such
> odds with a terminal disease like cancer, but another matter to infect
> healthy kids with a disease.
>
So if we have a chance to save 90 million kids we should rather let them
die?
It is clear that this is not an ideal situation, but it is how things
stand. There are too many variables and we must simply do what we can, given
the overwhelming odds against us being able to identify each and every one of
them, and worse still, being able to measure each variable for each kid before
we vaccinate. (I note that none of this makes the research itself unscientific-
these are practical challenges for which you cannot blame scientists).
> Ideally human beings would be honest and self governed with a love for all
> humanity, but since they are not, fear is what keeps them in line. We
> simply don't have any consequences that scientists and policy makers fear
> enough. Heck even when they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar,
> the fines don't bankrupt companies.
Scientists are not the same as pharma companies. I don’t understand exactly
what would you like scientists to do.
