Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText.
Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>
A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences
Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

suck abstract from ncbi


10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30438-2

http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30438-2
suck pdf from google scholar
32479747!7259898!32479747
unlimited free pdf from europmc32479747    free
PDF from PMC    free
html from PMC    free

suck abstract from ncbi

pmid32479747      Lancet+Infect+Dis 2020 ; 20 (8): e198-e203
Nephropedia Template TP

gab.com Text

Twit Text FOAVip

Twit Text #

English Wikipedia


  • COVID-19 human challenge studies: ethical issues #MMPMID32479747
  • Jamrozik E; Selgelid MJ
  • Lancet Infect Dis 2020[Aug]; 20 (8): e198-e203 PMID32479747show ga
  • COVID-19 poses an extraordinary threat to global public health and an effective vaccine could provide a key means of overcoming this crisis. Human challenge studies involve the intentional infection of research participants and can accelerate or improve vaccine development by rapidly providing estimates of vaccine safety and efficacy. Human challenge studies of low virulence coronaviruses have been done in the past and human challenge studies with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 have been proposed. These studies of coronaviruses could provide considerable benefits to public health; for instance, by improving and accelerating vaccine development. However, human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 in particular might be controversial, in part, for ethical reasons. The ethical issues raised by such studies thus warrant early consideration involving, for example, broad consultation with the community. This Personal View provides preliminary analyses of relevant ethical considerations regarding human challenge studies of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, including the potential benefits to public health and to participants, the risks and uncertainty for participants, and the third-party risks (ie, to research staff and the wider community). We argue that these human challenge studies can reasonably be considered ethically acceptable insofar as such studies are accepted internationally and by the communities in which they are done, can realistically be expected to accelerate or improve vaccine development, have considerable potential to directly benefit participants, are designed to limit and minimise risks to participants, and are done with strict infection control measures to limit and reduce third-party risks.
  • |Betacoronavirus/*immunology/pathogenicity[MESH]
  • |COVID-19[MESH]
  • |Coronavirus Infections/*prevention & control[MESH]
  • |Drug Development/*ethics/methods[MESH]
  • |Human Experimentation/*ethics[MESH]
  • |Humans[MESH]
  • |Pandemics/*prevention & control[MESH]
  • |Pneumonia, Viral/*prevention & control[MESH]
  • |SARS-CoV-2[MESH]


  • DeepDyve
  • Pubget Overpricing
  • suck abstract from ncbi

    Linkout box