The ostrich effect

An excellent virology blog which you can find by clicking here, has been discussing the recent discovery of porcine (pig) viral contaminants in one of the two rotavirus vaccines (the other one has not yet been tested). The technology to do these sorts of tests is fairly new and finding this virus in the vaccine was a bit of a shock to those researchers who discovered it - and to the vaccine manufacturer who produces it, the government that approved it and the parents whose children have already received it.

The question is - now that we know this type of testing is available, should we use it on other vaccines?

To my mind, that seems like a pretty well open and shut case - of course we should!

Within the 'scientific' community however, that response is not quote so cut and dried. If we test vaccines for potentially dangerous contaminants, we may have to admit that they are not as safe as we have been claiming for the last 200 years. What a pandora's box that would open!

But if we have the technology and we don't use it...what does that say about our claims to be exercising our duty of care in regards to these vulnerable children and infants who rely on us to only do good - never harm? Primum non nocere - firstly do no harm - the most important line in the entire Hippocratic Oath.

It is an interesting debate and one in which the morals of those who are responding in the negative (no, we should not do these tests) should be questioned.

Going back to the precautionary principle - a guide post we should never let out of our sight - lack of proof of harm is NOT the same as proof of safety. Proof of safety is a requirement before any therapeutic good is used or recommended.

Please visit this blog and submit your vote and your comment.