dgreen@squid.cs.ucla.edu (Dan R. Greening) (09/25/90)
Wounded.Bird@f38.n135.z1.fidonet.org (Wounded Bird) writes: >About a year ago I remember a fellow posting here that he was taking part in >tests of GP-160. He was saying his employer, The IBM Corporation, had actually >encouraged people to do so. I remember it so well because some jerk popped in >with why would you want to risk your life for a bunch of perverts and drug >abusers? God, I was pissed. <grin> This was a civilian study. Maybe, you are discussing me. The number of volunteer GP160 vaccine patients at IBM, with posting access, is likely to be 1. There are only 120 participants in the civilian NIH GP160 trial. I want to make something clear. IBM Corporation has no corporate policy that I know of, on volunteer participation in drug trials. My immediate management supports my involvement in this trial. In no way could I characterize the IBM Corporation, as a whole, as "encouraging people to become involved." Many IBM managers would applaud such volunteerism, but it doesn't derive from corporate policy. The only organization I know of that encourages its employees to participate in vaccine studies is the Catholic Church. >"Scientists and reporters who cover science have a responsibilty to make it >very clear that these trials are preliminary safety trials. They do not signal >the advent of an effective solution to the AIDS problem. Raising false hopes >could diminish educational efforts that are essential to control the >epidemic." Indeed, I know someone involved in the vaccine study who got lazy with safe sex, and became infected. He is now in an AIDS drug study. He had not, by the way, converted to antibody-positive as a result of the vaccine. It isn't even clear that uninfected antibody-positive means you are safe. The only way one is safe is by avoiding the possibility of being exposed.