I’m really not sure how to pitch this one – to be frank I don’t have enough credible information to go on – given that my first exposure to the story was via the Daily Mail… But it is also on the BBC’s site in various forms.<\/p>\n
The rough story is that a volunteer for a clinical trial involving malaria was exposed to malaria, and then absconded fleeing the country before the second part of the trial, which was supposed to be a treatment arm.<\/p>\n
You can see the full story (in it’s daily mail glory) here: http:\/\/www.dailymail.co.uk\/news\/article-1321796\/Malaria-trial-man-Matthew-Lloyd-investigated-sex-offence-claims.html<\/p>\n
Or if you prefer a slightly less sensational BBC report see here: http:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/uk-england-11525564
\n
\nI must admit to being a bit baffled, and if anyone knows more than I do about this I’d love to hear it.<\/p>\n
Two obvious questions occur:
\n1. If this really is a live malaria trial and there was genuine risk of the participant dying in three days without treatment – then why do this as an outpatient study – what kind of research ethics committee would allow that, given the fairly obvious risks involved. (having had malaria myself, I’m a bit skeptical about a fair amount of this story)<\/p>\n
2. Why would a trial of a malaria treatment be carried out like this, given the abundance of already exposed people elsewhere – again it seems surprising that a REC would approve this.<\/p>\n
It might simply be a case of media confusion, but I thought it was interesting enough to flag up.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I’m really not sure how to pitch this one – to be frank I don’t have enough credible information to go on – given that my first exposure to the story was via the Daily Mail… But it is also on the BBC’s site in various forms. The rough story is that a volunteer for […]<\/p>\n