France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.

How to stay healthy and prevent risks and consequences on your health and public health. occupational disease, industrial risks (asbestos, air pollution, electromagnetic waves ...), company risk (workplace stress, overuse of drugs ...) and individual (tobacco, alcohol ...).
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Obamot » 12/03/21, 01:01

GuyGadeboisLeRetour wrote:It is all well and good your crêpages de chignon, but ultimately, thing is Bidule, Truc is Thing or not? : Mrgreen:
ABC is not Machin but surely Duchemøl, on the other hand PB28x is Pégaze with certainty. : Cheesy:
0 x
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Janic » 12/03/21, 08:23

Janic wrote:
it is: To assert things without proof is not to be mistaken, it is defamation. If you don't know, you don't assert.
Ditto for crook! : Evil:
Aren't you a little bit obsessive by any chance?
this is called refreshing your very volatile memory.
my memory is going very well thank you, it's just that you keep coming back to your obsession.
It would seem that not, for your memory on the contrary, or you have a selective memory on the insistence to declare the H as charlatans, but more for the rest that you hasten to accuse: "To assert things without proof is not to be mistaken, it is libel. If you don't know, you don't assert.". It was you who just wrote it. So first clean your trough, before criticizing others!

PS: We are still waiting for your proofs ... obviously absent and therefore you slander, slander, slander all the time. : Evil:
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by ABC2019 » 12/03/21, 09:17

Janic wrote:
Janic wrote:
it is: To assert things without proof is not to be mistaken, it is defamation. If you don't know, you don't assert.
Ditto for crook! : Evil:
Aren't you a little bit obsessive by any chance?
this is called refreshing your very volatile memory.
my memory is going very well thank you, it's just that you keep coming back to your obsession.
It would seem not, for your memory on the contrary, or you have a selective memory on the insistence on declaring the H as charlatans,

my memory is fine, again I still think the H. works by placebo effect (which is also not a bad thing from a health point of view), and that those who claim that it has a "real" action are charlatans. It's just that that wasn't the topic here and you're obsessively bringing it back, that's all.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Janic » 12/03/21, 09:22

Just a little reminder on medicine before the Nuremberg Code ... and even after! : Cry:

60 years of the Nuremberg doctors' trial
Why was the Code not applied for several decades?
The 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg doctor's trial: why a so long waiting to implement the Code?
Francois Lemaire *
Medical intensive care unit, Hôpital Henri Mondor, 51, avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 94010 Créteil Cedex, France
* francois.lemaire@hmn.aphp.fr
On July 19, 1947, the trial of Nazi doctors ended in Nuremberg [1]. For six months, the prosecution led by Brigadier General Telford Taylor had detailed the medical experiments carried out on detainees in concentration or extermination camps by the accused, MOST DOCTORS, AND, FOR SOME OF THEM, UNIVERSITY TEACHERS, AT TIMES EVEN REPUTABLE RESEARCHERS [2]. The whole world had followed this trial, the accusation was precise, argued, extremely documented: the crimes were recent, the evidence abounded, surviving victims testified [3]. ELSEWHERE, THE ACCUSED DENIED NOTHING; CONFRONTED WITH THE INDICIBLE CRUELTY WHICH HAD BEEN THEM, AID BY SKILLED LAWYERS, THEY Tried RATHER TO JUSTIFY IT, SOMETIMES EVEN WITH MORGUE, ARGUING OF THEIR SUBMISSION TO THE AUTHORITY OF THE TIME, TO THE NEEDS OF WAR MEDICINE AND THE OBLIGATION THAT THEY HAD TO ADVANCE THERAPEUTICS in order to protect their soldiers. The subjects of this research testified to this: rewarming of hypothermic subjects, treatment with antiseptics of gangrenous wounds, limb transplantation, DEVELOPING A VACCINE against typhus ... But for the prosecution, the challenge, formidable, was not limited to the necessary condemnation of the guilty, the demonstration once again of the Nazi horror (in the face of such evidence, who was thinking of the time that one day we could deny it?); he had to demonstrate that the medical research carried out in the camps had nothing to do with the experiments carried out by American researchers, and more generally in the “civilized” Western world, including in Germany before 1933. This that it was necessary at all costs to avoid, it is that the world public opinion, indignant, does not condemn in block any form of human experimentation [3, 4].
The trial faltered, however, when the defendants and their attorneys, as offensive as they were well-informed, challenged prosecution expert Prof. Andrew Ivy, vice-president of Northwestern University and former president of the American Physiological Society, called from Chicago as reinforcements to Nuremberg to defend American medical research. THEY OBLIGED IT TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION CONCERNING RESEARCH ON HUMANS (AND WHICH MENTIONED THE OBLIGATION OF CONSENT) EXIST ONLY SINCE DECEMBER 1946, THAT IS TO SAY "AFTER" THE OPENING OF THE TRIAL. Analyzing with relevance the scientific literature on the experiments carried out by the Americans (in particular Strong, in the Philippines), the English or the French (for example Yersin, in Indochina), the defense showed this reality totally ignored until then: that this research had carried ON INDIGENOUS, POOR AND ANALPHABETIES, INCAPABLE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT ARE INVITED TO PARTICIPATE, OR ON DETAILS DEPRIVED OF FREEDOM, OR AGAIN ON DISABLED PLACED IN INSTITUTION, TO WHOM WE HAD BEEN RUN AT RISKS, FORESEKED DEADLY; OR FINALLY ON DEATH SENTENCES, A SITUATION THAT IS SIMILAR ACCORDING TO DEFENSE LAWYERS TO THAT OF DETAINEES IN NAZI CONCENTRATION CAMPS1.
The universal message of the Nuremberg trials, blinding, is indeed the indictment of medical research of time, past and present, ANY IMPRESSION OF UTILITARIAN MORALS which then prevailed, and not just Nazi experiments. Yet this evidence was not seen as such for a long time, and SCANDALOUS EXPERIENCES CONTINUED TO BE CONDUCTED IN WESTERN COUNTRIES FOR SEVERAL DECADES. The reason is very simple: public opinion and especially the medical investigators wanted to see in the German methods only the expression of the murderous madness of the Nazis, WITHOUT QUESTIONING THEIR SELF IN THE WORLD'S LEAST [5]. The Nuremberg Code has remained a dead letter. As Jay Katz wrote in 1990, “It was a good code for barbarians, but an unnecessary one for ordinary physician-scientists” [6], or, before him, David Rothman: “American researchers and physicians apparently found Nuremberg irrelevant to their own work. They believed… that the bizarre and cruel experiments have been conducted not by scientists and doctors, but by sadistic Nazis officers… ”
The declaration of the World Medical Association in Helsinki, twenty years later, in 1964, has hardly changed the course of things. However, the new text was more precise, gave concrete instructions and had somewhat attenuated certain requirements of the American judges [7]: consent was no longer an absolute requirement, it could be delegated in the event of the patient's incapacity. Research with a “therapeutic” aim benefited from reduced constraints compared to those which applied to non-therapeutic research. The purpose of the research had to concern the one who would be subjected to it (“Medical research is only justified if there is a reasonable likelihood that the populations in which the research is carried out stand to benefit from the results of the research”). Finally, the rigid utilitarianism [8] which prevailed in the text of 1947 (article 2: "The experiment must have practical results for the good of the company impossible to obtain by other means") had given place more clearly to the ENFORCEMENT TO PLACE THE SAFETY OF THE PERSON WHO WAS READY TO SEARCH BEFORE THE COMPANY'S PROPERTY (“In medical research on human subjects, considerations related to the well-being of the human subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society”).
After the war, the situation developed differently in North America and in France.
In the United States, without taking any account of the revelations of the Nuremberg trials and even less of the resulting code, EXPERIMENTS CONTINUED ON SOLDIERS, OR IN PENITENTIARIES, OR AGAIN IN INSTITUTIONS, ESPECIALLY ON ATTACKED CHILDREN. IT IS THE INDIGENT, BLACK, OR OTHER MINORITIES WHO WERE REQUESTED, OFTEN UNSUCHED, OR FOR SMALL MONEY. The example of the experiments at Holmesburg prison in Philadelphia is exemplary in this regard [9]. Dr. Albert Kligman, professor at the University of Pennsylvania, one of the founders of modern dermatology, conducted from 1951 to 1974 HUNDREDS OF TESTS ON PRISONERS, setting up in the prison itself a clinical research unit, which employed up to thirty assistants. The experiments included INOCULATION OF NUMEROUS DERMATOLOGICAL DISEASES (MYCOSES IN PARTICULAR), ASSOCIATED WITH SKIN BIOPSIES AND VARIOUS SAMPLES; LATER EXPERIENCES WOULD BE CONDUCTED ON HALLUCINOGENES (LSD), CARCINOGENIC SUBSTANCES (DIOXIN) AND RADIOACTIVE AGENTS, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE ARMY OR THE CIA. When he entered the prison for the first time, in 1951, Kligman had been seized with vertigo, he had seen, he would say later, only "hectares of skin" ... "All I saw before me was acres of skin. It was like a farmer seeing a fertile field for the first time ”. From 1962 to 1966, he was able to conduct 193 trials, 153 of which included experimental drugs. Many of these tests, although safe, were very painful (for example, observing the regrowth of a surgically removed nail); THE PRISONERS WERE VOLUNTARY, THEIR ESSENTIAL MOTIVATION WAS REMUNERATION, A FEW DOLLARS, AND LATER THE MITIGATION OR HOPE OF REMISSION OF SENTENCE. Most of these trials were sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry, with which Kligman had numerous contracts (33 laboratories for this period). When the FDA temporarily shut down the prison's research unit for a month in 1966, it was apparently because Kligman hardly followed the PCBs of the time, AND NOT FOR BREACH OF ETHICS. In fact, this situation was not unique, and much of the research, IN PARTICULAR MOST OF PHASES 1 WAS CARRIED OUT IN PRISONS [10].
This "golden age" of savage research, however, was drawing to a close. In 1966, Henry Beecher, the chairman of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School (Boston), published in the N Engl J Med [11] - with difficulty, so much his rant hit the medical establishment of the time [12] - a denunciation overwhelming number of 'unethical' clinical trials YET PUBLISHED IN THE BEST SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, N Engl J Med, Lancet, JAMA. Wondering about the origin of the drift of medical research that he observed, and of the ignorance of the lessons of Nuremberg to which it testified, H. BEECHER REQUESTED THE UNCONTROLLED AMBITION OF YOUNG RESEARCHERS FOR WHOM SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATION HAS BECOME A VITAL REQUIREMENT, THE SESAME OF ANY ACADEMIC CAREER. The scandal had however remained confined to the medical sphere. The latest blow came from the widely publicized revelation in the early 1970s of the highly scandalous "Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment", which had been going on since the 1930s [13]. SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS SUFFERED FROM SYPHILIS, BLACK, POOR, LIVING IN SOUTHERN ALABAMA, WERE ENROLLED IN AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY TO DOCUMENT THE "NATURAL HISTORY OF THIS DISEASE", YET THEY HAVE ALREADY DECEASED. When the first treatments for syphilis appeared in the 1940s, patients, without their knowledge, were not allowed to benefit from it… The revelation of this study caused a scandal, and the threat of legal action for genocide against the federal State had led to its interruption, in 1972 only [14]. It was because times had changed ... utilitarianism, blind respect for the doctor (White) and the passivity of the war years had lived on, the United States had entered the troubled years of civil rights struggles (human rights). Blacks, women, homosexuals, prisoners…), demands for autonomy and individualism. The mainstream press, which had long praised the dedication and "redemption" of prisoners who submitted to medical experiments out of altruism, now denounced its commercial exploitation. In 1973, during his hearings in the Senate, Senator Edward Kennedy admitted: “Those who have borne the principal brunt of research… have been the more disadvantaged people within our society; have been the institutionalized, the poor and minority members ”(cited in [9]).
On July 12, 1974, a "National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research" was created, it was to reflect on the supervision of medical research and the protection of subjects who lent themselves to it [15]. Ten years before our Huriet-Sérusclat law, “… a mountain of regulations”, as DJ Rothman called it in 1987 [16], the first American regulations on drug research resulted from it [17]. The Belmont report [19], another product of the Commission, had not only marked the essential difference between care and research, it also affirmed the principle of justice, which prohibited research intended for the most fortunate from being carried out on those who would not benefit: “… For example, during the 20th and early 1940th centuries the burdens of serving as research subjects fell largely upon poor ward patients, while the benefits of improved medical care flowed primarily to private patients. Subsequently, the exploitation of unwilling prisoners as research subjects in Nazi concentration camps was condemned as a particularly flagrant injustice. In this country, in the 1970's, the Tuskegee syphilis study used disadvantaged, rural black men to study the untreated course of a disease that is by no means confined to that population… ”. It was therefore only at the end of the 9s, after the interruption of the Tuskegge Syphilis Experimentation, after the closure of the scattered clinical research units in American prisons, that, according to Allen Hornblum [XNUMX], “… a generation after American judges sentenced Gerhard Rose and his nazi colleagues in the Palace of Justice, the Nuremberg code took up residence in America ”.
The evolution of ideas in France has taken a very different course. The quality of the reflection and the requirement of the solutions proposed by the Belmont report have no equivalent in our country; Perhaps only CCNE report n ° 58 of June 1998 [18] approaches it, which is moreover largely inspired by it. No or very little analysis (s) of past research, little reflection on research ethics, no recognition of errors or injustices committed, even less “repentance”… but no scandal either, he This must be recognized, apart from the Amiens “experiments” carried out by Alain Milhaud [19] in the 1980s [20]. THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY WAS WITHOUT DOUBT LESS AGGRESSIVE THAN IN THE UNITED STATES, THE SUMS AT STAKE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, AND THE REQUIREMENT OF PUBLICATION FOR ACADEMIC PROMOTIONS WOULD ONLY COME LATER. However, medical research at the end of the XNUMXth century and the first half of the XNUMXth century was in no way different in France from what it was in England or the United States, as the examples described during the trial had shown [21] 2.
However, the French also had been informed of the unfolding of the Nuremberg trial. A Frenchman, Captain François Bayle, had followed it from start to finish and in 1950 published the report in a large 1-page book, “Caducée contre croix swastika”. Probably, the France of the immediate aftermath of the war, which became unanimously resistant after 1944, was little inclined to introspection and even less to self-criticism.. However, an ephemeral “International Committee…” (ISCWC) based at the Institut Pasteur in Paris and directed by R. Legroux and P. Lepine[3],
[*] the very one who had rejected the preventive treatment against polio in favor of a vaccine!
had started in 1946 to collect testimonies of prisoners, some being scientists as prestigious as Charles Richet and Marcel Prenant. This commission was intended to prepare the prosecution files in anticipation of the trial of the Nazi doctors, which was originally planned to be international, on the model of the trial of dignitaries of the Third Reich, which had just concluded. . But when the Americans decided in August 1946 to conduct this trial alone, in their zone of occupation, the “International” committee was no longer necessary. However, he had had time to collect certain testimonies from French detainees who had taken part in tests, in particular on typhus, in the Struthof camp, near Strasbourg.
MEDICAL RESEARCH THUS CONTINUED IN FRANCE, WITHOUT NOISE, WITHOUT RULES, IGNORING THE NUREMBERG CODE AS WELL AS THE DECLARATION OF HELSINKI [22]. Such indifference is astonishing. The reason is undoubtedly that the confusion between care and research has nowhere been so affirmed and claimed as in France. Why worry about rules specific to research, which are moreover quite unnecessarily restrictive, why submit to the assessment of a “research ethics” committee, why finally ask the patient for specific consent since we were only doing “ to treat it ”, according to specific modalities, but in any case for its“ direct individual benefit ”[23, 24]? As for physiopathological research, without therapeutic intention, it officially did not exist. The 1979 code of ethics (which was only revised in 1995, that is 7 years after the passing of the Huriet-Serusclat law!) Does not even mention it: Article 19 simply stated: "L 'use on a patient of a new therapeutic substance can only be considered after adequate biological studies,… and only if this therapy can be of direct interest to the person ”. In his commentary, the president of the National Council of the Order, Prof. Lortat-Jacob, added moreover on November 17, 1976: “… the experiment is only admissible in the interest of the subject which is submitted to it. ". He was simply repeating what the Order had said two years earlier, in a press release: “ THE CNOM OFFICE RECALLS THAT ANY HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION IS CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLE OF RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE WHICH IS LISTED AT THE HEAD OF THE CODE OF ETHICS " (cited in [25]).
It is useful to look today at the conditions in which medical research took place in French hospitals before the law of December 22, 1988, prepared by senators Claude Huriet and Franck Sérusclat, known as the “Huriet-Serusclat law”. Jacques Dangoumau recently recounted the slow emergence of clinical pharmacology in France, throughout the 1970s and 1980s, and the bitter battles waged to impose rigor and methods in the conduct of drug trials [25]. As for "non-therapeutic" research, which would soon be called "without direct individual benefit" (SBID), it experienced its "thirty glorious years" from 1960 to 1990, allowing a new generation of university physicians to publish in the major international journals and access to a university hospital career, for which the conditions of access were notably tightened. In "interventional" disciplines such as cardiology, pneumology, resuscitation, surgery, MANY RESEARCH NOW INVOLVED HUNDREDS OF PATIENTS, MOST OFTEN UNSUCEED; THEY DIDN'T EITHER KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CARE AND RESEARCH ... Express, informed and written consent was then unknown. There were no research ethics committees, however called for by the Declaration of Helsinki since 1964. Certain “hospital ethics committees” began to be set up in hospitals from 1975 [25, 26], spontaneously, probably more to meet the requirements of reviewers of Anglo-Saxon journals than for the sake of patient protection. It was not until 1983 that the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, known as the “Vancouver Group”, demanded that all research, for publication, conform to the Declaration of Helsinki; WHICH SINCE 1975 IMPOSES THE OPINION OF AN “INDEPENDENT ETHICS COMMITTEE ". The law and regulations were silent. Even more serious, before the 1980s, there was no ethical debate on the legitimacy of research on sick men or on the advisability of their supervision. We were certainly far from Anglo-American utilitarianism, but it seemed natural that the patients, who benefited from the best care in the advanced services of the CHUs, and this free of charge, at the expense of social security and national solidarity, participate in exchange for the production of knowledge and the progress of medicine. This conception is probably not fundamentally wrong, BUT IT IS THE LACK OF INFORMATION AND CONSENT THAT MAKES HER MORALLY CONDEMNABLE. Added to this, as in the United States, is the worrying gap between investigating physicians from the best society and PATIENTS SUBJECT TO EXPERIMENTATION WHO ARE AMONG THE POOREST, OFTEN AT THE TIME OF IMMIGRANTS.
It is therefore the Huriet-Serusclat law, in 1988, i.e. 40 years after the Nuremberg judgment, which recognized the need and finally authorized in France medical research, including non-therapeutic, and supervised it, setting up a very complete system of which the essential is still present. THE INFORMED WRITTEN CONSENT, THE OPINION OF A PERSONAL PROTECTION COMMITTEE, THE AUTHORIZATION BY THE "COMPETENT AUTHORITY", THE INSURANCE OBLIGATION DATES FROM THIS PERIOD. It was based on the Declaration of Helsinki, which at the time marked a separation between therapeutic research, with less restrictive rules, and “non-therapeutic” research, which needed better control. The Huriet-Serusclat law had increased by opposing research with and without “direct individual benefit” (SBID), perpetuating the care / research confusion for the next fifteen years. The abandonment by the World Medical Association in the last version of the Declaration of Helsinki in 2000 of its distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic research and the transposition of the European directive 2001/20 / EC got it right. BUT BY THE ABANDONMENT IN LAW 2004-806 OF THE ALIBI COMMODE OF THE DIRECT BENEFIT OF RESEARCH, IT BECAME FINALLY ACCEPTED THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENTATION WAS THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY, AND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL CARE OF THE SICK WHO WAS PREPARED FOR IT.
And it became necessary to appropriate (finally?) The Nuremberg message, IN A WAY TO PROTECT THE PERSON AGAINST THE ABUSIVE USE OF HIS BODY, HEALTHY OR SICK, A PERMANENT TEMPTATION FOR THE INVESTIGATOR.
________________________________________
1
Medical experiments have been carried out on death row inmates since ancient times. IN A FAMOUS LETTER SENT TO THE EMPEROR OF BRAZIL, LOUIS PASTEUR ASKED HIM TO TEST HIS ANTIRABIC VACCINATION ON DEATH SENTENCES. In the concentration camps, the test subjects were Polish resistance fighters, German Communists, Soviet soldiers, whom the German defendants considered to be criminals sentenced to death. As for the Jewish detainees who were referred to him, an accused declared without any particular emotion during the trial that he did not even ask himself the question ...
It should be noted here that most of these EXPERIENCES TAKEN PLACE IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS LOCATED IN GERMANY, NEAR BIG UNIVERSITY CITIES : Dachau near Munich, Ravensbrück near Berlin and the Struthof near Strasbourg. Most of the extermination camps in which millions of Jews perished, including Auschwitz, were located in Poland.
2
Pierre-Charles Bongrand, in a medical thesis of 1905 (referenced in [7]), explains, for example, that “… idiots, in whom only the intellectual centers are atrophied, will be able to provide excellent subjects for experiment. "
References
1. Lemaire F. The Nuremberg doctors' trial: the 60th anniversary. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32: 2049–52. [Google Scholar]
2. Taylor T. Opening statement of the prosecution December 9, 1946. In: Annas G, Grodin M, eds. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946: 67–93. [Google Scholar]
3. Schmidt U. Justice at Nuremberg: Leo Alexander and the Nazi doctors' trial. Palgrave: MacMillan, 2004. [Google Scholar]
4. Grodin M. Historical origin of the Nuremberg code. In: Annas G, Grodin M, eds. The Nazi doctors and the Nuremberg code. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 121–44. [Google Scholar]
5. Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med 1997; 337: 1436–40. [Google Scholar]
6. Katz J. The consent principle of the Nuremberg code: its significance then and now. In: Annas G, Grodin M, eds. The Nazis doctors and the Nuremberg code. New York-Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992: 227–39. [Google Scholar]
7. Fagot-Largeault A. The revised Helsinki declaration. In: Right to knowledge, respect for people and clinical research. Paris: Flammarion, 2001: 15–22. [Google Scholar]
8. Weindling P. Human guinea pigs and the ethics of experimentation: the BMJ's correspond at the Nuremberg medical trial. Br Med J 1996; 313: 1467–70. [Google Scholar]
9. Hornblum AM. Acres of skin. New York-London: Routledge, 1998. [Google Scholar]
10. Lerner BH. Subjects or objects? Prisoners and human experimentation. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1806–7. [Google Scholar]
11. Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med 1966; 274: 1354–60. [Google Scholar]
12. Kopp VHK Beecher and the development of informed consent in anesthesia research. Anesthesiology 1999; 90: 1756–65. [Google Scholar]
13. Jones JH. Bad blood, 2nd ed. New York: The Free Press, 1993. [Google Scholar]
14. Chelala C. Clinton apologises to the survivors of Tuskegee. Lancet 1997; 349: 1529. [Google Scholar]
15. Curran W, Hyg S. The syphilis Tuskegee study. N Engl J Med 1973; 291: 730–1. [Google Scholar]
16. Rothman D. Henry Beecher revisited. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 1195–99. [Google Scholar]
17. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research, 1979 (available October 10, 2007). http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/mpa/belmont.php3 [Google Scholar]
18. CCNE. Informed consent and information of people who lend themselves to acts of care and research. The notebooks of the Consultative Ethics Committee for the Life and Health Sciences 1998; 17: 3–21. [Google Scholar]
19. Milhaud A. Living wills. Paris: Bernard Barraud, 1988. [Google Scholar]
20. Dickson D. Human experiment roils French medicine. Science 1986; 329: 1370. [Google Scholar]
21. Fagot-Largeault A. Regulatory practices in clinical research: Review of the law on the protection of people who lend themselves to biomedical research. Med Sci (Paris) 2000; 16: 1198–2002. [Google Scholar]
22. Richard A, Veyret S. Human guinea pigs: the secrets of medical experimentation. Paris: La Découverte, 1988. [Google Scholar]
23. Lemaire F. Does research with direct individual benefit exist? Med Sci (Paris) 2004; 20: 244–7. [Google Scholar]
24. Lechopier N. The care / research distinction in the genesis of the Huriet-Serusclat law. Thesis with a view to obtaining the DEA in philosophy, under the supervision of Prof. Anne Fagot-Largeault. Paris: University Paris-I Panthéon-Sorbonne, 2002. [Google Scholar]
25. Dangoumau J. Origins of pharmacology in France. Therapy 2002; 57: 6–26. [Google Scholar]
26. Demarez JP. The CPPRB, from its origins to tomorrow. Letter from the Pharmacologist 2004; 18: 59–71. [Google Scholar]

© 2007 medicine / sciences - Inserm / SRMS
Table of Contents
Paper
• Abstract
• Full HTML
• PDF (139.8 KB)
• References
• PubMed Record
Metrics
• Show article metrics
Services
• Articles citing this article
CrossRef (4)
• Same authors
-Google Scholar
- EDP Sciences database
-PubMed
• Recommend this article
• Send to my Kindle
• Download quote
Related Articles
From Nuremberg to today - “Ethics Committees” in human experimentation
Med Sci (Paris) 2008; 24: 208-212
The history of the genesis of the Huriet-Sérusclat law of December 1988 - Law on the protection of persons who lend themselves to biomedical research
Med Sci (Paris) 2008; 24: 323-327
Ethics in Clinical Trials - Founding Principles, International Guidelines, Roles and Responsibilities of Ethics Committees
Med Sci (Paris) 2007; 23: 777-781
More
medicine / science
Chief editor: Jean-Luc Teillaud - Deputy-chief editor: Thierry Jouault
Chief copy editor: François Flori - Associate editor: Jean-Pierre Hardelin - Editorial board
ISSN: 0767-0974 - eISSN: 1958-5381
© medicine / science - Inserm
All rights reserved
1 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Janic » 12/03/21, 09:37

my memory is fine, again I still think the H. works by placebo effect (which is also not a bad thing from a health point of view), and that those who claim that it has a "real" action are charlatans. It's just that that wasn't the topic here and you're obsessively bringing it back, that's all.

1. Insofar as you reproach others for what you do yourself, it is entirely justified, compared to what you do elsewhere.
2. what you think, who cares completely! What counts is the opinion of tens of thousands of doctors and millions of patients who have been able to verify on document (and not stashed behind a computer) the validity of the process of care and cures on mild pathologies such as SERIOUS.
3. the placebo effect is independent of the mode of care and depends only on the subject, which shows here again and in addition, that you do not know anything! Otherwise the A, itself would be charlatanism.
4. Quackery, according to the dictionary definition, does not apply to H, since like all therapy, it is not the method of care that counts, but the results that each obtains as is verified on piece for 200 years.
5. Your willful ignorance is no excuse to defame the specialized medical profession.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by ABC2019 » 12/03/21, 09:38

that's what I was saying, you obsessively bring everything back to your defense of H.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Janic » 12/03/21, 09:48

by ABC2019 / pedro »12/03/21, 10:38 AM
that's what I was saying, you obsessively bring everything back to your defense of H.
that's what I was saying: you cheat, you lie, you slip away so as not to answer questions, so you have to debunk yourself elsewhere as you obsessively do! 8)
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
ABC2019
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12927
Registration: 29/12/19, 11:58
x 1008

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by ABC2019 » 12/03/21, 11:23

Janic wrote:by ABC2019 / pedro »12/03/21, 10:38 AM
that's what I was saying, you obsessively bring everything back to your defense of H.
that's what I said: you cheat, you lie, you slip away so as not to answer questions,

was there a question?
excuse me I missed it in the cart of imprecations that you pour in each post.
0 x
To pass for an idiot in the eyes of a fool is a gourmet pleasure. (Georges COURTELINE)

Mééé denies nui went to parties with 200 people and was not even sick moiiiiiii (Guignol des bois)
Janic
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 19224
Registration: 29/10/10, 13:27
Location: bourgogne
x 3491

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Janic » 12/03/21, 12:46

Janic wrote:
by ABC2019 / pedro »12/03/21, 10:38 AM
that's what I was saying, you obsessively bring everything back to your defense of H.
that's what I said: you cheat, you lie, you slip away not to answer to the questions,
was there a question?
to the questions not one!
excuse me I missed it in the cart of imprecations that you pour in each post.
if it was only this time, you miss everything when you know nothing about it and you keep wanting to ignore. I do not see what you could answer credible, so much you are subscribed to the fakenews of your sect AFIS and its funny ones.
when in the dumpster of imprecations (you obviously forget yours) I prefer them to your dumpster of manure
of your usual fakenews.
0 x
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: France is one of the worst European pupils in terms of vaccination.




by Obamot » 12/03/21, 14:13

mdr : Cheesy:
0 x

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 241 guests